After many years of walking the political path in life lock-step with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I have recently come to the conclusion that I have been all wrong.
Endless media reports, countless statements from high ranking government officials, and months of discussion with All-stocks elite "Off-Topic" posters like Glassman, Bdgee and the former 4Art, have caused me to have an epiphany.
Saddam was innocent, and Bush is the real dictator.
Refreshing as it is to see the err of my ways, I am frightened by the implications of it.
George Bush rigged an election in order to maintain power. He used family, political and monetary influence to sway the outcome of an election in his favor. His Nazi administration came to power by means outside of "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".
George "Hitler" Bush lied about Saddam having WMD's. After all we never found any right? The Bush administration "cherry picked" intelligence information in order to create a false case against Saddam, who was innocent, but sitting on one of the largest oil fields in the world. Bush, being a greedy Texas oil man motivated by personal vendettas, ("...he tried to kill my dad..."), lied to start an unjustified, unneeded war.
George Bush and the GOP gestapo have subverted the constitution and can spy on you without a warrant. If they see something they don't like, they arrest you as an enemy combatant and throw you in jail without a lawyer or a phone call, for an indefinite period of time. If you do not cooperate, they can have you tortured.
Indeed these are dark times.
One more thing, however. Despite the horror I have awaken to, I have found a silver lining in the dark cloud that is the past 6 years of King George's reign.
Two more years.
George Bush will be gone in two years. America will elect a new president and get back to being the way it always was before the dictator came:
Perfect.
Posted by BuyTex on :
whoa...Bush being what he is does *not* mean Saddam was a kewl guy.
easy does it on the epiphany stuff, big fella...
Posted by glassman on :
rove has also used this tactic effectively for too long...
people are sick of it too....
sadam was guilty, and so are plenty of others...
including that guy Bush was holding hands with from saudi arabia....
Posted by BuyTex on :
which tactic?
Posted by glassman on :
the tactic of making ridiculous claims like:
Saddam was innocent, and Bush is the real dictator.
i have never said bush is a dictator or that sadam was "innocent"...
i'm not "happy" about most of this...
sadam was what he was... there'll be more...
our culture in America is so different from all other cultures that Americans have a hard time understanding why leaders like Sadam or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exist, but throughout history? THEY are the norm and WE are the abberration... if we expect to "export" our way of life to other peoples? we are gonna have to do it in a different way...
[ February 10, 2006, 22:08: Message edited by: glassman ]
Posted by bdgee on :
Hahahaha, he is really simple minded enough to think that dishonest BS will work on us.
Hey, NR, forgetaboutit doofus.
Half of what you say is true, but Saddam is a mean crooked lying S O B too.
Posted by BuyTex on :
gotcha...
that means we can't simply close the borders, however: our best "PR" is students from other countries who return home, eh?
Posted by glassman on :
"close" the border? nah, just tighten it up to a safer level...
from the Gospelcom.net Iranian president outlaws new converts. February 10, 2006 Iran (MNN)--Sources with Open Doors say Iran's President dealt a severe blow to believers by outlawing Muslims who convert to Christianinity.
According to one ODM worker (unnamed for security reasons), the word is that mayors have been given the order to crack down on all Christian cell groups.
you may remember a fairly recent post of mine--basically, if "they" wanted to close the border with Mexico?
Saw some congressman or other on the new this am, stridently pounding that message...in fact, he invoked the Prez in particular
Still...my point is that foreigners who come and live here are our best "advocates," once they go home...
"Hey, it's pretty rare you get your door busted down at midnight by gov't guys in black hoods"...
Posted by glassman on :
they rarely go home
hollyweed could help too... by making movies that "enlighten" different cultures about each other... instead of "rambo"izing everybody
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Was it worth all the lives lost, the $241,000,000,000 (and counting) in borrowed money, and the boost given to terrorist groups worldwide by the growing sentiment of disgust for the U.S. Government, just to oust an ineffective dictator that was no threat to the USA?
Meanwhile, the mastermind of the 9/11 attack is still at large.
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Saddam was innocent, and Bush is the real dictator.
Posted by bond006 on :
No the way things turned out it does not look like it is or will be worth it.
So I say give saddam his ten minuet trial and then a rope and come home.
Posted by Kate on :
The lives that were given up for your freedom, were worth it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by bdgee on :
No life in this invasion of Iraq was given up for my freedom. Those lives were sacraficed to build a cover to stop people from looking any closer at a stolen election and to "manufacture" a way to transfer the money the poor and middle class, paid in taxes, into the pockets of the very very wealthy so they could take it off shore and never pay taxes.
Posted by bdgee on :
bump
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
As soon as I see a life that was given up for my freedom, I might agree. There have been none in this war so far.
quote:Originally posted by Kate: The lives that were given up for your freedom, were worth it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by bond006 on :
Originally posted by Kate: The lives that were given up for your freedom, were worth it!!!!!!!!!!!!
I keep my freedom and I fought for so called freedom for other people. I would never say that all those deaths were fought for the the benifit of my freedom here in this country
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Saddam is not innocent are you mad? that statement is so frivilous.
i am a republican and i want bush gone....it couldnt happen any sooner. he has buit a very scary regime. you all know what i mean and am talking about.
i want things back to normal...clinton was not normal...we seemed to be pretty good under regan didnt we?
Posted by Bob Frey on :
If Saddam would have let the UN inspectors do there jobs he would still have his job.
Not sure why the guy didn't let them but that was reason enough for me to remove him.
Next!
Posted by bdgee on :
CashCowMoo,
"we seemed to be pretty good under regan didnt we?"
No, that is a fairy tale the republicans foster. This is Reagan's crew in power now. They were just as dishonest and crooked then, but between daddy Bush and Reagan they all got off on "arranged" technicalities or Presidential pardons. You hid your head in the sand back then and declared it was ok to coddle these crooks and look what you brought on us!
This damned Party first sickness MUST be ended. This is America! Stop voting for the party to be in POWER! That's been the route to dictatorship time after time, country after country. (And don't give me that BS about Democrats do it too. We are infested with the Republican party and it is the Republican Party that is the clear and present danger. No excuses and no more Party line rhetoric to make it look like it's a the democrats too. Do what is right for the Country.)
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Geezz bdgee, I haven't had my second cup of coffee..
Politics before fish farming this AM? yuck!
J/K ing ya dude...
Reagan? never payed that much attention to the Gipper...Just remember how interest rates came down, and I made some fast money in realestate..
Posted by bdgee on :
"Just remember how interest rates came down, and I made some fast money in realestate.."
That should mean you would have loved Clinton.
That doesn't excuse Reagan for training and protecting this gang of crooks, all in the name of the PARTY!
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Yep, did well when Bubba was banging away...
Seemed to be a stalemate government, great for buisiness..
Things really started picking up at the end of the Bush Senior administration, then wobbled a bit with Bubba, and then took off..
I made and spent some serious doe in those days. Behind the scenes government officials and cronies Banked some serious bucks..
Same O same O this administration is just to stupid to know how to play the game.
If W would of spent more time partying and getting laid, everything would of worked out just fine..Whoops! forgot about the fact we would of still had Fast Draw Cheney.!
I just don't think we have any good political stock left, to much in-breeding.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
What a simple time we could of had if not for 9/11
W probably could of been contained as just good ole dull boy, that spent most of his time fishing with his Dad..
Well, on to the market, and some DOE!
Posted by bdgee on :
Deep down inbside, he was a potential dictator wanna be all along......
A leopard can't change his spots. Whatever is hiding them gets washed off or he has to come out from behind the bushes and be seen to be spotted.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob Frey: If Saddam would have let the UN inspectors do there jobs he would still have his job.
Not sure why the guy didn't let them but that was reason enough for me to remove him.
... "Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam's, who was then in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts, explained how Iraq held back information from the U.N. inspectors.
"We did not reveal all that we have," he said. "We did not reveal the volume of chemical weapons we had produced."
Kamel said Iraq had not revealed "the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported."
Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan shortly after the tapes were recorded, and Iraq was forced to admit it had concealed its biological weapons program. Kamel returned to Iraq in February 1996 and was killed by security forces." ...
Posted by bdgee on :
NR, you fooled me.
The depth of your intelect does indeed rival the thickness of a sheet of Zig Zag. I had thought it much much more shallow. My appologies.
Posted by glassman on :
i really am amazed, i just can't understand why anybody would act tougher than they really are
i'm also amazed that it never occurred to anybody to enlist sadam in the war against terror....
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Our government worked with him in the past...
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'm also amazed that it never occurred to anybody to enlist sadam in the war against terror....
Posted by bdgee on :
"i really am amazed, i just can't understand why anybody would act tougher than they really are [Roll Eyes]"
Glass... you never dodged the draft and don't have reason to act tough.
"i'm also amazed that it never occurred to anybody to enlist sadam in the war against terror...."
It did occur to any number of people that were then shouted down with a vengence that sugested if they didn't shut up the FBI might be tapping their phone and reading their mail. Then guess wha?
The he-man mentality used to assess the situation decided that Saddam would be an easy target to build up with lies and propaganda into an evil on the world and still be easy to wipe out.
These wanna be military minds just are too limited in imagination to understand that John Wayne was a ficticious character playing a script where the writer could control things.
In the real world, no one likes or trust a bully and no one controls the feelings and emotions of the bystander that has his world over turned by the attitude that describes what stands in place of diplomacy and compromise "shock and awe"
They weren't shocked or awed! The Iraqis are an educated society, perhaps not so much as us, but they are not a backward bunch of fools...they already knew the might of the U.S. was beyond their means to resist. instead of shocked or awed, they are insensed that anyone would play the bully that way.
In short, they are pissed and want to get even.
Posted by Peaser01 on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Our government worked with him in the past...
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'm also amazed that it never occurred to anybody to enlist sadam in the war against terror....
Worked with him?
Shoot, We put him in power!
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by Peaser01:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Our government worked with him in the past...
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'm also amazed that it never occurred to anybody to enlist sadam in the war against terror....
Worked with him?
Shoot, We put him in power!
All the more reason why it was our responsibility to make sure he was removed from power...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Pretzel logic.
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: All the more reason why it was our responsibility to make sure he was removed from power...
Posted by glassman on :
yeah, and then what NR?
in case you haven't noticed? the whole mideast is becoming destabilised....
there was a good reason to do business with sadam.... Iran
Posted by bdgee on :
NR, you are really too much.
We did indeed put him in power and anything thereafter we may do will NEVER remove the stain on our standing in the world, including lying to the whole world in an attempt to make your hero draft dodging deserter coward look like a real man, by illegally invading Iraq to remove the dictator Reagan installed.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Pretzel logic.
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: All the more reason why it was our responsibility to make sure he was removed from power...
Doing the right thing and trying to fix our mistakes is pretzel logic eh?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: yeah, and then what NR?
in case you haven't noticed? the whole mideast is becoming destabilised....
there was a good reason to do business with sadam.... Iran
Look, first off, the middle-east has been unstable for centuries...
Second, I agree, there was good reason to do business with Saddam, but it became obvious afterwards that we shouldn't have dealt with him.
This begs the question, do we let him keep the power and weapons we gave him, or do we realize the mistake we made, take responsibility for it, and take away his weapons and remove him from power?
Sure, it would be very easy to just walk away and say "Gee, sorry Iraq, but you are gonna have to take care of Saddam yourself" but that isn't the right thing to do, now is it?
As much as I despise saying it, Bdgee is right in that nothing will change the screw up we made when we started dealing with Saddam. However, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves against Saddam was an even bigger screw up.
Leaving Saddam in power as long as we did only allowed him to gain a foothold, and kill off those who would oppose him. If we hadn't pissed around so long trying to make honest deals with a dishonest man through the joke called the UN, there might have been a lot more Iraqis who would have welcomed us as liberators.
Posted by glassman on :
the joke called the UN
this is a sad statement...
we created the UN, we need some sort of UN, and quite frankly calling it a joke means we failed...
it's interesting how people who support Bush call it a joke when it's convenient, and yet when it's time to deal with the REAL threat, and Iran is a real THREAT TO US, we are utilizing its resources again...
you either want politics to work or you don't...
simple cost-benefit analyses?? Iraq is gonna cost a trillion dollars and then some... some may say the economy can handle it... but the belt tightening has already started, and we are just beginning to see the true financial impact...
Iraq has never been a threat to US... they died by the tens of thousands in the Gulf war and never recovered...
saying the mideast has always been unstable is a copout....the mideast was moving toward stability prior to 911, and it's never been this unstable....
this whole "EVENGELICAL DEMOCRATIZATION" program is a farce... as proven by the Hamas victory in Palestine...
Iran has a democracy too.....
they will CHOOSE dictators because they want powerful leaders... it's the remaining vestiges of tribal culture
Posted by bdgee on :
When you pardon or "manage" the investigations of crimes against the Nation by a pack of self serving ego inflated neo-nazis, instead of putting them in prison as examples, you allow then to return under King George, th Deseter and continue to f--- up the world by once again further destablizing the middlew east.
Of course, the real reason they do it has nothing to do with the middle east or who of what is right or wrong or best or anything to do with the middle east. Give a group of conspiritors in an all powerful Administration that didn't mind violating the constitution under Reagan, they return with less respect for the Constitutiond and, with George's War, they have the opportunity to distribute the Nation's treasury out to friends and associate groups and entities that will kick it back to the benifit of the pack of neo-nazis that distributed your money.
That's the only reason we are in Iraq.
Posted by glassman on :
When Benjamin Franklin exited Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a lady approached him and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?"
"A Republic . . ., if you can keep it," Franklin replied.
Posted by bdgee on :
Never, when party loyalty was placed above loyalty to the country, has any nation survived.
Posted by glassman on :
talk about "innocent"???
Al Qaeda Detainee's Mysterious Release Moroccan Spoke Of Aiding Bin Laden During 2001 Escape
By Craig Whitlock Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, January 30, 2006; Page A01
....During the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when al Qaeda leaders were pinned down by U.S. forces, Tabarak sacrificed himself to engineer their escape. He headed toward the Pakistani border while making calls on Osama bin Laden's satellite phone as bin Laden and the others fled in the other direction....
supm ain't right here..... Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the joke called the UN
this is a sad statement...
we created the UN, we need some sort of UN, and quite frankly calling it a joke means we failed...
it's interesting how people who support Bush call it a joke when it's convenient, and yet when it's time to deal with the REAL threat, and Iran is a real THREAT TO US, we are utilizing its resources again...
you either want politics to work or you don't...
The UN failed with North Korea, it failed with Iraq and IMO it will fail with Iran. I DO NOT SUPPORT BUSH going to the UN for Iran.
No action or delayed action means Iran armed with nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach Europe.
Surgical strikes are the only solution with Iran.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the joke called the UN
...and yet when it's time to deal with the REAL threat, and Iran is a real THREAT TO US...
...Iraq has never been a threat to US... they died by the tens of thousands in the Gulf war and never recovered...
So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?
Posted by bdgee on :
"So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?"
Yes, Iraq was not a threat!
Iraq was already a beaten country, essentially under complete control by the UN.
And before you go to the party line memo of talking points about the graft in the funds alloted Iraq for health requirements, etc., ballance that amount with just the over charges by Haliburton for just one month. Oh, you say, it won't ballance? Even for just a month's worth of Halibutron? Too short you say to match. Well, what do you know about that!
Korea was and is a threat. So was and is Iran. But our appointed king and his cadre of Iran/Contra veterans (criminals), can't handle even Iraq. Iraq posed NO danger to the US and was too well controled by the UN to be mush problem, even in the local area.
Get off the Party line propaganda machine.
Have you ever considered how far behind in achieving weapons that could threaten the world's peace Iran would be if this same cadre of war mongers in this administration had not, while working from the Reagan Administration, traded first class modern up to date US weapons and technical data on even more powerful weapons to Iran to get money to illegally fund the Contras?
Ever wondered if the reason these guys could feel so absolutely certain that Saddam had a cache of WMDs is because they gave him WMDs back when they were in the Reagan Administration? Poor guys, how could they know Saddam had done exactly like he said (and the records said, by the way) and destroyed them. Just can't trust those dictators, can you.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the joke called the UN
...and yet when it's time to deal with the REAL threat, and Iran is a real THREAT TO US...
...Iraq has never been a threat to US... they died by the tens of thousands in the Gulf war and never recovered...
So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?
well NR?
what was sadam going to do to US exactly??
spit?
i'm for surgical strikes on Iran too...
BUT?
you first go thru the legal process...
and that involves the UN....
right about now? Bush is wishing he hadn't gone into Iraq without UN support.... and Iran has taken advantage of US weakening the UN....
bdgee is also correct about deals with Iran and Iraq and Libya by the current admin folks... even HAL has done work in Iran Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
Halliburton Doing Business With the 'Axis of Evil'
By Jefferson Morley washingtonpost.com staff writer Thursday, February 3, 2005; 8:00 AM
The award for oddest geopolitical couple of 2005 goes to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Houston-based Halliburton.
The story began on Jan. 9 when the Iran News ran a Reuters story reporting that Halliburton "has won a tender to drill a huge Iranian gas field."
geee.... i wonder why the Iranins think they can get away with building nukes.... HAL can't afford to destroy it's investments???? Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?"
Yes, Iraq was not a threat!
Iraq was already a beaten country, essentially under complete control by the UN.
And before you go to the party line memo of talking points about the graft in the funds alloted Iraq for health requirements, etc., ballance that amount with just the over charges by Haliburton for just one month. Oh, you say, it won't ballance? Even for just a month's worth of Halibutron? Too short you say to match. Well, what do you know about that!
Korea was and is a threat. So was and is Iran. But our appointed king and his cadre of Iran/Contra veterans (criminals), can't handle even Iraq. Iraq posed NO danger to the US and was too well controled by the UN to be mush problem, even in the local area.
Get off the Party line propaganda machine.
Have you ever considered how far behind in achieving weapons that could threaten the world's peace Iran would be if this same cadre of war mongers in this administration had not, while working from the Reagan Administration, traded first class modern up to date US weapons and technical data on even more powerful weapons to Iran to get money to illegally fund the Contras?
Ever wondered if the reason these guys could feel so absolutely certain that Saddam had a cache of WMDs is because they gave him WMDs back when they were in the Reagan Administration? Poor guys, how could they know Saddam had done exactly like he said (and the records said, by the way) and destroyed them. Just can't trust those dictators, can you.
tolja--he dumped em down the oil wells!
Posted by bdgee on :
I appreciate your idea, Tex, but the stuff we are talking about won't fit in an oil well. It is impossible.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
One thing Saddam is right about, this trial is a farce. Everyone knows he committed acts against his own people that will earn his death. He no longer has allies that will help him. The Al Qaeda resistance has evloved beyond Saddam in that Saddam, rather than being seen as leader, is now only a tool used to incite. East versus West is all that matters now.
So, we can pull out and watch Iraq be enveloped into Iran and have a new mega power in the middle east with a major grudge against the Western world. One that will go to war against any nation who tries to control them.
Or, we can stay and watch tensions rise with Iran unitl a war starts. Doesn't matter if it is the nuclear issue that sparks it. Could be that, an attempt to control the Iran malitias that say they are on peace keeping missions in Iraq, or soemthing completely unrelated. Doesn't even matter if they declare war on us before we strike at them. If that war happens it will be seen as the Infidel West attacking Muslims and Jihad will be called. The East will spontainiously combust and Iraq, instead of being the battlefield theatre, will become the American base of operations. All the while the resistance will be irroding the American military IED by IED. Palestine will attack Israel who will call on us for support. And the longer the war goes on the more it will seem that the Christian west is trying to irradicate Islam and that to be a good Muslim you must stand up and oppose it leading to terrorism all over the world.
Don't get me wrong, now that we are in Iraq I believe we need to finish the mission. We owe it to the people of Iraq and the soldiers who died to get the pieces back together. I just don't know if we can do it without starting World War 3. I REALLY don't like the path we are on right now, and NO...I don't know how to fix it.
The Bigfoot
Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I appreciate your idea, Tex, but the stuff we are talking about won't fit in an oil well. It is impossible.
wheeeeeee!
20 questions:
1) how big is the "stuff"?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Bigger than a bread box? Posted by bdgee on :
How big is well stem? Watch them drill a while. Many dozens are being drilled in town right now, so that will be easy. When they pull it you can see it is small enough for the roughnecks to wrap their hands around. That's the size of the hole in the ground. I used to know, but not any more.....maby 6 - 7 inches in diameter. Then, once drilled, there is the casing insude that can't fit atom bombs in there.....or canisters of poison gas. Nope, it didn't go down any oil wells.
Then go listen to the weapons inspectors. Both groups...the UN ones before Bush forced them out (and called then completely shamful things and names) and the US ones that Buish sent in after the invasion (he wasn't real nice to them either). They all said the US claims of undestroyed previous WMDs and programs to biuld more were bluntly false. Actually that is a lot nicer than they worded it. As to the claims that Saddam didn't have records to prove he had destroyed previous supplies, once again, that was BS from the White House. There never was any requirement that he have any.
The notion that you can build an atom bomb small enough to fit in a suitcase is from the wild imagination of some idiot they has no idea what one contains. And a suitcase won't fit in the casing of an oil well. And an H-bomb has to contain an atom bomb to set it off. Nope, he didn't stuff any atomic devices down any oil wells.
Could he have stuffed nerve gas down an oil well? Not in the form of gas....at least not in this decade. The hole already has stuff in it, some under high pressure, so he couldn't get it in there without forcing it down or it being in a canister. Have to be right tiny canisters, though. Once again we run into the problem of him and a whole army to help having enough time to stuff all those many thousands of litte bottles of gas in those wells, one at a time inside several years time.
It sounds like a witty solution to a quandary, Tex, but it isn't feasible. Anyway, as the weapons inspector told Bush before and after, there were none to hide. So what of the quandary posed by Bush's insistance that there were WMDs and the facts that neither WMDs and programs to produce them or any evidence that they existed are there? It's simple. They didn't go anywhere. Someone spent hundreds of millions of US treasury finds to make you believe a falshood. Guess who?
Posted by BuyTex on :
I take your answer as the largest single unit would be the size of a suitcase.
1-a) yes?
1-b) no?
Posted by bdgee on :
Neither. Any would be larger than a suitcase.
Posted by BuyTex on :
2) how much larger?
(remember, 20 questions )
Posted by glassman on :
tex? why didn't sadam USE 'em if he had 'em??
he was done for...nothing to lose....
he had plenty of warning to prepare....
in answer to your question of how small is possible?
the more technical expertise you have, the smaller possible, to a certain point anyway, there is a lower limit of minimum critical masses... refining the most exotic and powerful materials become extremely expensive and difficult... the source would have had to been US or the USSR.... We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is probably closer to 15 than 11).
This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead. This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages) and had yields ranging from 10 tons up to 1 Kt in various versions. The warhead was basically egg-shaped with the minor axis of 27.3 cm and a major axis of 40 cm. The test devices for this design fired in Hardtack Phase II (shots Hamilton and Humboldt on 15 October and 29 October 1958) weighed only 16 kg, impressively close to the minimum mass estimated above. These devices were 28 cm by 30 cm.
- The W-54 nuclear package is certainly light enough by itself to be used in a "suitcase bomb" but the closest equivalent to such a device that US has ever deployed was a man-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). This used a version of the W-54, but the whole package was much larger and heavier. It was a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only 27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html
as a point of reference? Hiroshima was a 10 KILOton blast.... so these are dirty, but aren't particularly destructuve in the modern sense of nukes....
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I appreciate your idea, Tex, but the stuff we are talking about won't fit in an oil well. It is impossible.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: ...The notion that you can build an atom bomb small enough to fit in a suitcase is from the wild imagination of some idiot they has no idea what one contains...
I appreciate that you are eager to support the fear tactics of the administration, but that link you provide is just more nonsense of the kind that belongs on the front of one of those "newspapers" that line the checkout lanes in supermarkets. We need to get a little more realistic than the "tabloid science" being fostered to create fear by the Administration.
Have you any idea what the thickness of the walls of the "barrel" (the sort of dull green thing in the diagram you provide) would have to be in order to not split open when an amount of explosive necessary to drive the "Bullet" to a point close enough to the "target" to reach a critical mass"? As the bullet gets closer to the target and radiation grows toward critical mass, it creates a force resisting the bullet (enough to help split the barrel, but well short of a critical mass being reached). The amount of explosive not only must drive the bullet to the target, it must also be a bigger force than is built up as critical mass is approached. That means a cannon barrel thickness of the barrell and more. If you can fit it inside that suitcase, the barrel will be so thin it will split open before the bullet can reach the point of critical mass. Even if you could fit it inside that suitcase, you and me and a team of horses couldn't pick it up. Then there is the problem of stuffing that suitcase into the well casing....it just won't fit.
Another problem I see. Back when, I worked with the inventor of the very first neutron generator, studying neutron fluxes and concentrations (we were charged with certain studies on the feasibility of neutron bombs), I learned a bit about neutrons and neutron generators. You can't contain them and they don't run down wires like electrons or through tubes like a gas, so, as your picture shows, you have to place the neutron generators inside the barrell. In that case, as the bullet travels toward the target in your diagram......oops!......the bullet destroys the neutron generators!
But it's was a good try NR. I hadn't seen that design before....thanks......it's an interesting idea, using neutron generators.
Posted by Squire38 on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: ...The notion that you can build an atom bomb small enough to fit in a suitcase is from the wild imagination of some idiot they has no idea what one contains...
bdgee, though the drawing is horrible, I completely disagree with the terms used, and the explaination is poor (I am a former nuclear engineer), suitcases bombs are real and extremely easy to hide. I always hated the term suitcase, though, which implies one could walk into the airport with it. But it can easily be moved by a few poeple. The plutonium itself only weighs 20 to 30 pounds. The total weight would be around 250-350 pounds.
Just think, Iraq is slightly larger than California (in terms of square miles), lots of sand to bury the bombs and the poor people that dug the holes. Look at the MIG-25 planes they discovered. Hell if they can bury a squadron of MIGs, they can certainly bury a 350 lb. bomb.
Now I'm NOT saying they had nukes (I don't believe Iraq had any nuke WMDs), but they certainly had gas and such. I also don't believe the Iraq army had plans to sail to the US anytime soon. I try not to get in to politcal arguements, I just had an issue with your statements about the suitcase bombs. Unfortunately suitcase bombs exist, but not like the drawing in the link.
I had a chance to meet Mr. Cohen years ago after a speech, very interesting man.
Posted by glassman on :
there is another issue people are overlooking in the issue of "suitcase nukes"
being in close proximity to unshielded nukes causes death to those that are lucky, and you don't want to know how awful it is....
the materials are HOT baby.... sheilding is, by it's defintion, very heavy and dense to "stop" the radition.....
maintaining nukes is not for fools or impetuous people...
Posted by Squire38 on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Have you any idea what the thickness of the walls of the "barrel" (the sort of dull green thing in the diagram you provide) would have to be in order to not split open when an amount of explosive necessary to drive the "Bullet" to a point close enough to the "target" to reach a critical mass"? As the bullet gets closer to the target and radiation grows toward critical mass, it creates a force resisting the bullet (enough to help split the barrel, but well short of a critical mass being reached). The amount of explosive not only must drive the bullet to the target, it must also be a bigger force than is built up as critical mass is approached. That means a cannon barrel thickness of the barrell and more. If you can fit it inside that suitcase, the barrel will be so thin it will split open before the bullet can reach the point of critical mass. Even if you could fit it inside that suitcase, you and me and a team of horses couldn't pick it up. Then there is the problem of stuffing that suitcase into the well casing....it just won't fit.
Ok, I can't resist this either. Team of horses? MSN Encarta* Fourth paragraph down. bdgee, times have changed since you worked with Sam in the 1950s.
*I hate MSN, but figured it was reputable to use as a reference.
Posted by Squire38 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: being in close proximity to unshielded nukes causes death to those that are lucky, and you don't want to know how awful it is....
Not true, it all comes down to critical mass. I can take a blob of uranium, in the form of a sphere it's radioactive. If I spread it out like a string, it's not radioactive. Critical Mass
Look up Madame Marie Curie.
Posted by Squire38 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the materials are HOT baby.... sheilding is, by it's defintion, very heavy and dense to "stop" the radition.....
It depends on the radiation. Alpha radiation can be stopped by the dead skin on your body. Beta needs something a bit thicker, like clothing, wood, something like that. Gammas need steel, concrete, poly or water.
Posted by glassman on :
i dunno squire, Marie died of leukaemia in July, 1934, exhausted and almost blinded, her fingers burnt and stigmatised by "her" dear radium.
it gets worse, with the fisioinable materials...
as GMT in the USN? one of my jobs was to pick up the core in case of a handling accident and hand it off to the next team... i really didn't want to know how bad it would be at the time, but 3 minutes of exposur (within a foot or two) was what i was "allowed" by regs.... and i knew better than to expect to live a "normal" life with that much...
Posted by Squire38 on :
Critical mass eventually killed her. Like the story of the Mexican family that found the "warm rock" and they all died due to various form of cancer. The rock had enough critical mass. Spread it out and there are not enough nearby atoms to cause it to sustain a chain reaction.
I too am ex-Navy, I was a nuke MM (ELT). I can neither confirm nor deny pictures of me on top of the reactor on my submarine.
Posted by glassman on :
our subs are the reason we will ALWAYS be a free nation
you guys alwaays got the good food....
but i do like my tan Posted by Dustoff101 on :
maintaining nukes is not for fools or impetuous people...
Glass, Geezz man, I sure could have fun with that one..
But I will be nice today, maybe, well might, O the hell with it!
Then why do the Keystone Cops have the Keys?
Posted by glassman on :
i'm not that worried dusty.... there's a lot of good people that you just don't hear about minding the store....
Posted by Squire38 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: but i do like my tan
LOL, I wish I could tan, life dealt me the albino dwarf card. J/K
Well let me head back to researching stocks.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i'm not that worried dusty.... there's a lot of good people that you just don't hear about minding the store....
------------------------------------------------- I sure hope yer right........
I sure as heck do not want to see A-effected bunch of 4 eyed, dual billed, twin tailed, glowing, Pacific Blue Marlin a chasing a certain lure.!!
French Frigate shoals[ north of Kaui Hi.] has a Ruskie problem, did ya know that...??
Posted by bdgee on :
"bdgee, times have changed since you worked with Sam in the 1950s."
The name was Norman, not Sam, and is was the 1960s.
"Not true, it all comes down to critical mass. I can take a blob of uranium, in the form of a sphere it's radioactive. If I spread it out like a string, it's not radioactive."
Were that a correct statement, then neither of the Curies would have died from radiation poisoning. The material doesn't suddenly become radioactive when it reaches critical mass. It must first be radioactive in order to form a critical mass. It is possible to receive lethal doses of radiation from materials that can never form a critical mass. Radiation (and heavy, lethal amounts of it) would emanate from the amount of material necessary to reach critical mass (otherwise there is nothing to cause a nuclear reaction) and enough shielding to be safe from it won't fit in a suitcase.
"Critical mass eventually killed her. Like the story of the Mexican family that found the "warm rock" and they all died due to various form of cancer. The rock had enough critical mass. Spread it out and there are not enough nearby atoms to cause it to sustain a chain reaction."
I very seriously doubt that the Curies were ever were withing miles of enough fissionable material to form a critical mass or ever had enough to reah the point of fission. There were no man-mad elements then. The things that can become fissionable and can occur naturally are so very rare it requires a Manhatten Project to collect and purify enough to get a critical mass. I think you have confused the terms "critical Mass", fission, and "radioactive"...I don't just think you are wrong, I know you are wrong....minute amounts of radioactive uranium-235 (micrograms), which, along with uranium-238 is what they were working with, with enough time (i.e., exposure) will kill you.....larger amounts, yet still far far short of a critical mass amount will kill you FAST. (Me and old Norman were involved with experiments on that too.....I killed a many a rat that way, in order to determine the shielding effects of some strange things. And we NEVER had anywhere close to a critical mass.)
"It depends on the radiation. Alpha radiation can be stopped by the dead skin on your body. Beta needs something a bit thicker, like clothing, wood, something like that. Gammas need steel, concrete, poly or water.
And I'll add to that, most neutrons speeding from the sun will pass all the way through the Earth. Gamma rays, which are effectively "by-products" of the radioactivity necessary to for fission, will travel through several inches of lead and way more inches of water. The shielding needed to just be close to an amount of material that can create a critical mass for even a couple of minutes, assuming you are going to be live and functioning a few minutes later is a bunch. A single lead brick (shaped and about the size of a normal brick) weighs 55 pounds and isn't thick enough to protect you from the kinds of material used in nuclear bombs.
I have now run into the second ex-navy submariner who has told me, "I am a former nuclear engineer" and couldn't distinguish between radiation, fission, fusion, and critiacl mass....that has told me that the materials used to form a critical mass was entirely safe up to the point of critical mass, with NO shielding. Allow me to point out that the reaction going on in an atomic pile, fission, creates enormous amounts of radiation and is never (hopefully) allowed to reach a critical mass.....even in quantities smaller than is required for critical mass, of any configuration, it emits huge amounts of very deadly radiation and can kill within seconds. How did the Navy allow their supposed "nuclear engineers" to be so lacking in this vital concern? Radiation can exists absent fission and fission can exists without critical mass, but neither implication can be reversed! In order to achieve fission, you first must have radiation and in order to reach a critical mass, you first have to have fission. A critical mass results in a nuclear explosion (Note that even in the accident at Chernoble, critical mass never happened and many of the workers that went in to cleaan it up died withing minutes from radiation sickness.)
I offer my appreciation for your participation in debate. Interesting! But I also want to point out the post that you responded to was not meant to object to the possible existance of a thing called a "suitcase nuclear bomb", which can exists, but not in a size or configuration that would fit into a hand held suitcase (they could be fit into the bed of a pickup, but you aren't going to "pick it up", not by a long shot). The post was there to demonstrate that the conjecture that Saddam could have stuffed atomic bombs down an oil well isn't possible, even were it possible to build the devise pictured in NR's link. Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: ...The post was there to demonstrate that the conjecture that Saddam could have stuffed atomic bombs down an oil well isn't possible, even were it possible to build the devise pictured in NR's link.
You don't have to put it down a well. Just bury it in the desert.
Posted by Squire38 on :
bdgee,
I read your one post about neutron inventor (I was thinking bombs and Sam Cohen) and skipped the word generators, and figured you knew crap. I run into BSers all the time, but for you pretty much know your stuff. Most would have agree with my incorrect statements.
I would argue with your definition of critical mass. "A critical mass results in a nuclear explosion." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant super-critical.
Also you may need to look up the sizes of a suicase bomb. They can build them to be around 24" x 16" x 8". I don't know the size of an oil well hole, but I know a 24" x 16" x 8" is pretty close to my wife's suitcase. As I stated before though a suitcase bomb can not hand held. 350 lbs. is a bit too much for most people to carry.
Don't worry about the Navy. I was not a nuclear engineer in the Navy, just a nuclear tech. After the Navy I became a nuclear engineer and worked up near your neck of the woods. I completely understand the difference in radioactivty, fission, etc. I think that everyone is taught in 7th grade that the potassium in bananas causes them to be radioactive.
Posted by glassman on :
i have a hard time believing that at this late date, people are still clingning to the notion that there were WMD's in Iraq in 2001...
we "interrogated" 10's of thousands... offered rewards etc...
it not just that we couldn't find hiding places, we couldn't find PEOPLE that would have done any of the work... no infrastructure...nada,they just weren't there..
considering how foolish the admin looked without them? i think it's just plain a done deal..no WMD's...
i was much more concerned about them having weaponised smallpox than nukes anyway... even if they had both? the smallpox was a much worse scenario...
sadam was dictator of a small country, he played the part that job requires, including acting tougher than he was even after having his azz handed to him in the Gulf War... that's just the job description... when he invaded Kuwait? he mistakenly thought he had a "green light" from US.... and we didn't go to Kuwait's defense... we went in Saudi Arabias defense.. and the Sauds PAID for it too.... cash....
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: ...The post was there to demonstrate that the conjecture that Saddam could have stuffed atomic bombs down an oil well isn't possible, even were it possible to build the devise pictured in NR's link.
You don't have to put it down a well. Just bury it in the desert.
Get real and grow up. WMDs in Iraq just prior to the invasion didn't exist. Bush lied. It's that simple.
There are techniques of imaging from satalites that will detect things burried in sand that are no bigger than a dinner plate. First, they can detect the disturbance of the soil where recent digging was done (recent being as much as years). then they can use other techniques and "see" if anything is there.
The inspectors have reported that they definately told Bush there was NO evidence of any kind of WMDs and he chose to say otherwise, both before and after the invasion.
There hs never been any evidence of any kind that supports Bush's claims of WMDs and there ia a great deal of excellent evidence that that there were none.
Posted by bdgee on :
" I think that everyone is taught in 7th grade that the potassium in bananas causes them to be radioactive."
Huh?
Posted by Racer007 on :
The guy kicked out the UN inspectors.
All done period!
Posted by Racer007 on :
Made it through the 7th never heard that one!
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Racer007: The guy kicked out the UN inspectors.
All done period!
Yes, Saddam kicked out the UN inspection team over some incidents he said was U.S. spying (I don't, at that time, think he wanted them to conclude that he had no WMDs in order to keep Iraq at bay), butbefore the invasion, there was another UN team in Iraq working and telling Bush there was no evidence of WMDs or programs to make them. Then Bush announced war and told them to leave Iraq immediately. After the invasion, Bush sent in his own team, They gave him the same reports.
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
Well, bdgee ya got me eating popcorn and reading along..
Fasinating stuff...Gamma rays passing thru the earth, critical mass, proper shielding... Is super conductors? next?
Go man go!!
Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: tex? why didn't sadam USE 'em if he had 'em??
he was done for...nothing to lose....
he had plenty of warning to prepare....
in answer to your question of how small is possible?
the more technical expertise you have, the smaller possible, to a certain point anyway, there is a lower limit of minimum critical masses... refining the most exotic and powerful materials become extremely expensive and difficult... the source would have had to been US or the USSR.... We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is probably closer to 15 than 11).
This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead. This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages) and had yields ranging from 10 tons up to 1 Kt in various versions. The warhead was basically egg-shaped with the minor axis of 27.3 cm and a major axis of 40 cm. The test devices for this design fired in Hardtack Phase II (shots Hamilton and Humboldt on 15 October and 29 October 1958) weighed only 16 kg, impressively close to the minimum mass estimated above. These devices were 28 cm by 30 cm.
- The W-54 nuclear package is certainly light enough by itself to be used in a "suitcase bomb" but the closest equivalent to such a device that US has ever deployed was a man-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). This used a version of the W-54, but the whole package was much larger and heavier. It was a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only 27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html
as a point of reference? Hiroshima was a 10 KILOton blast.... so these are dirty, but aren't particularly destructuve in the modern sense of nukes....
Since we're "proving negatives," I'll ask one...
What's the biggest "slam" against the war? No WMD's found...
As far as "suitcases," they could be dismantled to components...
And the pipe size? Who says they have to stick to conventional pipe? Injection would be a much different proposition than extraction...After all, wasn't that Saddam who was building the super-cannon, or whatever? Who woulda thought of that and actually put it into construction?
Actually, I do not think nuke material was flushed. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if gases and liquids were pumped down some wells, though...
The thing is? It *is* a solution that solves lottsa problems, eg the satellite analyses Beedge mentions... yet, I've never seen any authority address it, even in speculation. That simply strikes me as odd...
Am I positing an "out" for Bush? nah. . . for one thing, if they proved the well idea now, just shows more problems for not checking sooner.
Let's say you make you a flow chart of logical possibilities; this leg doesn't even get checked? Makes no sense to me...
Posted by kilhs on :
Sadam attacked Iran in a preemptive strike. Kuwait was a preemptive strike. kurds were revolting , premptive strike . well if sadam uses the little bush doctrine of preemptive strikes I guess he could be considered inocent.
When you drop four 5,000 pound bombs on a restrant to kill sadam in the opening minutes of the WAR ON IRAQ but when you gather the bits of human remains no dna a matched sadams... WAS that a mistake?
Well one Alquada operative did traveled through iraq a few years earlier so those people eating diner paid the ultimate price for sadams (link) with alquada.
the 911 report has 25 pages ommited ,, those pertaining to soudi arabia. the home of the 911 suicide atackers,,, its a secret. shhh
Posted by bdgee on :
Because it isn't feasible, Tex.
You simply can't stuff things down an oil well like you can a dead body down the 20 foot deep 5 feet in diameter hand dug well in gramma's back yard. Very few things will fit and even if they would, there is already stuff in there and, in those oil fields, almost guaranteed to be under high pressure. Like it was in Kuwait, as demonstrated by the fires during the Gulf War, if you open one of those wells, stuff comes out and it comes out with great force. And assuming you tried to inject some sort of gas into the well, even one that doesn't have it's own positive pressure, the stuff might fill the hole but it can't disappear into the rock. The wells casing blocks it if there is any porous strata above the bottom and the oil bearing stratum at the bottom is already full of oil and gas. So you are limited to the volume of the inside diameter of the casing.
Let's look at the volume available in an oil well. With 3.14 approximating pi and the inner radius of the hole being 3 inches (=0.25 feet), the area of a cross section of the inside of the well is pi times the radius squared or,
3.14 x (0.25ft) x (0.25) = 0.196 sqft, approximately,
and for convenience, we'll round that off to 0.2 sqft foot cross section of the well..
So, if the well is 1000 feet deep, there are approximately 200 cubic feet of space in it; for a 2000 foot deep well, approximately 400 cubic feet, for a 3000 foot deep well, approximately 600 cubic feet, and so on.
Now, there are about 7.5 gallon per cubic foot, so
[(200cuft) (7.5gal/cuft] = 1500 gallons, approximately in 1000 feet of oil well..
I have no figures for the depths of the Iraq oil fields, but it probably isn't much different from those in Kuwait, where the depth of the deepest wells are reported to be about 8 - 9 thousand feet (see http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/cia/19960531/cia_62717_62080_01.html). Using the largest of those, we get that
(9000ft)(1500gal/1000ft) = 13500gallons per Iraqi oil well. approximately.
And that is assuming the space in the well contains nothing to begin with, which means a dry hole..
I don't remember the actual figure Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, etc. were claiming that Saddam had on store at the time of the invasion, but it was many many tens of thousands of cubic feet of biological and chemical weapons. Now, assuming you could find enough oil wells not under a huge pressures, so that you could pour or force those things into it, how long would it take how many people to pour how many tens of thousands of gallons of them into the oil wells?
We are not talking days or even weeks and we are not talking a miner effort to do it. How long does it take to pick out enough of the wells that can be filled with bio-weapons and chemical weapons and whatever? We'd need to gather and find a way to transport the stuff to the wells, something that isn't going to be done by just any average Iraqi you can find, because of the special care needed to handle this stuff. Once at the well, you have to uncap the well and afterward you have to recap it. Then. since we know there was no evidence of spillage of the stuff or any other of the activities of pouring it in the wells found after the invasion, it all had to be cleaned up and the evidence removed. Could that be done in days? Weeks? He didn't have weeks.
It simply isn't reasonable to assume Saddam hid all those thousands of gallons of poison gas, biological weapons, and nuclear devises we were assured he had in oil wells and it isn't reasonable to assume that the possibility hasn't had sufficient consideration. By now, some of that nerve gas, some of that biological weaponry, or some other liquid or gaseous stuff he had hidden in the oil wells would have escaped or been pumped out and been discovered or some one of the large force of people it took to do it would have taken the rewards offered for information or otherwise let the cat out of the bag and told the story and we'd know..
I'm sorry, but the notion that Saddam had all the nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons the Administration assured us he did isn't reasonable. The only proper conclusion is that the Administration sold us a bill of goods.
Posted by BuyTex on :
"He didn't have weeks."
I'm thinking months--when did Brown's predecessor resign to start the "rebuild Iraq company"?
Service crews pump chemicals down wells all the time...
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
Get real and grow up. WMDs in Iraq just prior to the invasion didn't exist. Bush lied. It's that simple.
There are techniques of imaging from satalites that will detect things burried in sand that are no bigger than a dinner plate. First, they can detect the disturbance of the soil where recent digging was done (recent being as much as years). then they can use other techniques and "see" if anything is there.
The inspectors have reported that they definately told Bush there was NO evidence of any kind of WMDs and he chose to say otherwise, both before and after the invasion.
There hs never been any evidence of any kind that supports Bush's claims of WMDs and there ia a great deal of excellent evidence that that there were none.
Bdgee, get your eyes tested, or learn how to read you moron...
..."We'd heard a great many things had been buried, but we had not known where they were, and we'd been operating in that immediate vicinity for weeks and weeks and weeks . . . 12, 13 weeks, and didn't know they were (there)," Rumsfeld said...
..."Something as big as an airplane that's within . . . a stone's throw of where you're functioning, and you don't know it's there because you don't run around digging into everything on a discovery process," Rumsfeld explained. "So until you find somebody who tells you where to look, or until nature clears some sand away and exposes something over time, we're simply not going to know...
How many months did we give Saddam to hide his WMD's before we came knocking on his door?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
By the way Bdgee, I am expecting your reply to be that the planes were ordered buried by Rumsfield so they could be later "found" in an attempt to make credible the "myth" that Saddam had WMD's and simply buried them in the desert somewhere.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: By the way Bdgee, I am expecting your reply to be that the planes were ordered buried by Rumsfield so they could be later "found" in an attempt to make credible the "myth" that Saddam had WMD's and simply buried them in the desert somewhere.
NR, you bring up an important point.. haven't you wondered why Rumseld didn't have a black ops team bring in something to find?
Bush's own people NOW, clearly say there was nothing there and no programs to develop more.....
all this speculation about burying stuff is contrary to Bush's own reporting....
none of it makes sense...
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
edit, wrong thread.
Posted by bdgee on :
NR,
Have you any idea what it would require to make a jet fighter that has been buried in the sand able to function again?
Have you any degree of respect for facts? If there were any truth to that tale of burrying aircraft in the sand it would have been flashed all over by the administration. We'd never hear the end of it. Instead, even Bush has begung to admit there were no WMDs in Iraq. Why can't you?
"By the way Bdgee, I am expecting your reply to be that the planes were ordered buried by Rumsfield so they could be later "found" in an attempt to make credible the "myth" that Saddam had WMD's and simply buried them in the desert somewhere."
No, not Rumsfield, though I don't believe he would rat on the prepetrator. More likely, if there actually was a plane burried in the sand, it was Cheney's idea. I point out too that even. if a plane was found burried in the sand and we could prove Saddam did it, that, in no way, demonstrates that Saddam had or hid WMDs. It's all pipe dream of the goose stepping Party loyalist.
Posted by BuyTex on :
Beedge, you mean the sand won't preserve it? like those silica gel dessicant thingees... Posted by bdgee on :
Ha ha ha....good one, Tex......
I can just hear the bearings whining as the sand grinds them away. Then the compresser starts to come apart and throws blades through the sides and belly and into the cockpit at a few hundreds of miles per hour. I ain't gonna drive that thing and I don't wanna be even close when they rev it up.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Ha ha ha....good one, Tex......
I can just hear the bearings whining as the sand grinds them away. Then the compresser starts to come apart and throws blades through the sides and belly and into the cockpit at a few hundreds of miles per hour. I ain't gonna drive that thing and I don't wanna be even close when they rev it up.
Bdgee, you are so blinded by your witch-hunt you missed the whole point. Since you obviously don't get it, I'll explain it for you.
If something as big as a jet plane can remain hidden in the sand next to a place where the military has been operating for 12-13 months, then wouldn't you say it is highly possible that you could find a spot in the desert to hide WMD's that could take years to be found or may never be found at all?
Focus Bdgee, Focus....
You were claiming that something as small as a dinner plate could easily be found..... remember?
By the way doofus...
quote:..."If there were any truth to that tale of burrying aircraft in the sand it would have been flashed all over by the administration."...
quote:Originally posted by glassman: NR, you bring up an important point.. haven't you wondered why Rumseld didn't have a black ops team bring in something to find?
Bush's own people NOW, clearly say there was nothing there and no programs to develop more.....
all this speculation about burying stuff is contrary to Bush's own reporting....
none of it makes sense...
If Bush and his cronies are so corrupt as you people claim and will lie about anything, then I'm pretty sure someone would have made sure we found WMD's. Perhaps they are not the jackboot thugs you make them out to be......
Posted by glassman on :
the aircraft find wasn't exactly covered up by the "liberal media" tho...
why wasn't it big news? because they were inventoried prior to our invasion... iraq was also estimated to have 60 french mirages... they were "discovered" because an informant told them where to find them.... but they knew he had them..
how many Mig pilots did sadam have? LOL..... a couple...
all of this stuff takes trained personnel..
nobody showed up to fight because they knew they would lose....
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Ha ha ha....good one, Tex......
I can just hear the bearings whining as the sand grinds them away. Then the compresser starts to come apart and throws blades through the sides and belly and into the cockpit at a few hundreds of miles per hour. I ain't gonna drive that thing and I don't wanna be even close when they rev it up.
Bdgee, you are so blinded by your witch-hunt you missed the whole point. Since you obviously don't get it, I'll explain it for you.
If something as big as a jet plane can remain hidden in the sand next to a place where the military has been operating for 12-13 months, then wouldn't you say it is highly possible that you could find a spot in the desert to hide WMD's that could take years to be found or may never be found at all?
Focus Bdgee, Focus....
You were claiming that something as small as a dinner plate could easily be found..... remember?
By the way doofus...
quote:..."If there were any truth to that tale of burrying aircraft in the sand it would have been flashed all over by the administration."...
It is not me that is blinded, NR, it is you and Fat Rush and the rest of the Goose stepping fools rattling on about the Party line nonsense.
There were no WMDs. I know it. Bush has admitted it. And you need to give up trying to make dubya honest. It won't work.
There are no WMDs in Iraq.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: It is not me that is blinded, NR, it is you and Fat Rush and the rest of the Goose stepping fools rattling on about the Party line nonsense.
There were no WMDs. I know it. Bush has admitted it. And you need to give up trying to make dubya honest. It won't work.
There are no WMDs in Iraq.
Ah yes, the old party line about Saddam having WMD's....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Posted by NaturalResources on :
By the way Bdgee, there are many more from where that came, but I figured I'd limit it to quotes made before 2000, since anything dated after that would draw your objections.
After all, the Democrats were only going off the "cherry-picked" intel Bush and his cronies were feeding them.... Right?
Posted by bdgee on :
Let's get one thing straight, Bush lied to the congress and to the people. People have a right to expect the President is telliung the truth and acting as if that were true, they reached conclusions not warranted by real facts. It isn't right to try to hold them to things they said on the basis of lies from Bush.
Posted by bdgee on :
You haven't the slightest concept of logic, have you?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
-Colin Powell; February 24, 2001
"In terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
-Condoleezza Rice; July 29, 2001 Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: You haven't the slightest concept of logic, have you?
And you haven't the slightest concept of chronology do you? Those quotes are from BEFORE Bush's time.....
Just exactly what do you think when you read the quotes from your beloved party claiming Saddam had or was developing WMD's in 1998?
Posted by bdgee on :
There actually was a time when there was a danger of Saddam. But Saddam was out of the terrorist picture before dubya was in office.....he sort of missed the boat and was left behind.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: There actually was a time when there was a danger of Saddam. But Saddam was out of the terrorist picture before dubya was in office.....he sort of missed the boat and was left behind.
Ah, but that danger miraculously disappeared once the republicans took office... I see
Under Clinton in 1999 Saddam is a danger. Under Bush in 2000 Saddam isn't a danger.
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, but they chose to ignore that fact because they needed a war to hide the facts of the stolen election and to serve as a mechanism to drain the money out of the U. S. Treasury into their control; to set op the takeover by corporations and cartels.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Yes, but they chose to ignore that fact because they needed a war to hide the facts of the stolen election and to serve as a mechanism to drain the money out of the U. S. Treasury into their control; to set op the takeover by corporations and cartels.
I see, so basically it is just a vast rightwing conspiracy controlled by Bush and his evil Nazi cronies. The end goal being total control of the entire planet? Or does this only involve Iraq and it's oil reserves?
Posted by bdgee on :
I don't know how far it is designed to go. I'm not in on the planning and control. And I can't get that information from you because you aren't "in" either. They don't confide in you, just direct you. By the way, how long ago was it you were allowed to have an idea and didn't have to go the the Party for one?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I see you're waking up! [/sarcasm]
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: I see, so basically it is just a vast rightwing conspiracy controlled by Bush and his evil Nazi cronies. The end goal being total control of the entire planet? Or does this only involve Iraq and it's oil reserves?
Posted by Dustoff101 on :
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: Beedge, you mean the sand won't preserve it? like those silica gel dessicant thingees...
--------------------------------------------- Or those other "thing a ma jiggers" that don't travel at the speed of light [as previously thought] and half of um get lost in time traveling thru the Earth because now they discovered they indeed have mass?
Posted by bdgee on :
Yup, an them quirks and strangs too.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
The two contenders for President of the United States are:
1. George W. Bush and
2. Saddam Hussein
My vote would go to GW Bush. But I'm sure most of you would vote for Hussein since most of you hate Bush and hate America. Shame on you Cindy Sheehan wannabes!
Posted by glassman on :
yeah but now that the civil war may be starting in Iraq? you all are beginning to realise why sadam was what he was...
he's guilty as sin, and so will whoever ends up running Iraq (be guilty)....
Posted by Team Sleep on :
Has anybody ever wondered where these impoverished people like the Iraqi's get their guns and ammo, rockets and bombs?
Who is supplying these people? And where is the money coming from to purchase arms?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: Has anybody ever wondered where these impoverished people like the Iraqi's get their guns and ammo, rockets and bombs?
Who is supplying these people? And where is the money coming from to purchase arms?
Gee I wonder.... I'll give you 3 guesses...
Posted by Team Sleep on :
I don't know. It could be anybody from the U.S. government to Bin Laden to Ronald McDonald.
And if it's not from the U.S., why don't we work to break up the supply chain?
It's pretty sad when they barely have enough basic life essentials, yet their mud-homes are filled with AK's, ammo, and bombs.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Sorry, wrong answer. You are truely... Clueless.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
Because I'm clueless, how about you enlighten me?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total USSR 25145 57.26 France 5595 12.74 China 5192 11.82 Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56 Poland 1681 3.83 Brazil 724 1.65 Egypt 568 1.29 Romania 524 1.19 Denmark 226 0.51 Libya 200 0.46 USA 200 0.46 South Africa 192 0.44 Austria 190 0.43 Switzerland 151 0.34 Yugoslavia 107 0.24 Germany (FRG) 84 0.19 Italy 84 0.19 UK 79 0.18 Hungary 30 0.07 Spain 29 0.07 East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06 Canada 7 0.02 Jordan 2 0.005 Total 43915 100.0
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: Because I'm clueless, how about you enlighten me?
Gee... Russia, China and France.. The same guys who opposed us when we ran to the UN for permission to take out a lunatic dictator that had already broken the terms of the first Gulf War ceasefire. What a surprise....
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
teamsleep they are getting their weapons from saudi smugglers, iran, syria etc...the borders are losely patrolled.
also what do you think happened to the iraqi military ammunition stock piles when the invasion happened? people looted those...there are weapons everywhere
Posted by Team Sleep on :
I guess Bush doesn't see a problem with the throat-slitters being so heavily armed since they are a democracy full of law abiding citizens...
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: teamsleep they are getting their weapons from saudi smugglers, iran, syria etc...the borders are losely patrolled.
also what do you think happened to the iraqi military ammunition stock piles when the invasion happened? people looted those...there are weapons everywhere
Who do you think supplies Iran, Syria etc? Who provided a majority of Iraqi military ammunition stock piles? Hmmmmm...
[ March 01, 2006, 17:43: Message edited by: NaturalResources ]
Posted by glassman on :
NR, what's your source on those numbers?
i was under the impression that Sadam bought those with CASH...
and we weren't that low on the list...
you forget? they were in a war with Iran? you know those guys that took aour Embassy hostage?
i don't see the peopl of Iraq all that well armed... which is a good thing...
they have AK's.... not exactly a high price toy... they are cheaper than a high quality bolt action rifle...
Posted by glassman on :
never mind, i found the list at SIPRI
stockholm international peace research institute?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: never mind, i found the list at SIPRI
stockholm international peace research institute?
Yes, I should have linked it, sorry.
Posted by glassman on :
i thought for sure Germany was higher on the list too..
remeber that big giant gun sadam oredered from Britain? project Babylon?
heh, they confiscated it at the port before it shipped...after sadam payed them
The Project Babylon gun would have a barrel 156 meters long with a one meter bore. The launch tube would be 30 cm thick at the breech, tapering to 6.5 cm at the exit. Like the V-3 the gun would be built in segments. 26 six-meter-long sections would make up the barrel, totalling 1510 tonnes. Added to this would be four 220 tonne recoil cylinders, and the 165 tonne breech. The recoil force of the gun would be 27,000 tonnes - equivalent to a nuclear bomb and sufficient to register as a major seismic event all around the world. Nine tonnes of special supergun propellant would fire a 600 kg projectile over a range of 1,000 kilometres, or a 2,000 kg rocket-assisted projectile. The 2,000 kg projectile would place a net payload of about 200 kg into orbit at a cost of $ 600 per kg. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm Posted by BuyTex on :
yeah--that's what I was thinking of: the Babylon gun...
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:UNITED NATIONS - Russia and China have rejected proposals from the United States and other veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council for a statement demanding that Iran clear up suspicions about its nuclear program, diplomats said Monday.
...
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Here we go again...
Lies II: Return Of The Morons
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: Here we go again...
Lies II: Return Of The Morons
Here we go again... attack of the liberal clique.
Post something relevant or piss off....
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
No one's buying it this time, I hope.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I have as much right to be here as you, you rude ****.
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Post something relevant or piss off....
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
It's Regime Change, Again by Tom Porteous
Make no mistake. The current posture and policy of the United States are leading inexorably towards a military showdown with Iran that could have profoundly negative consequences for Iran, for the region and for the United States.
For all the studied vagueness and ambiguity of senior United States and European officials, for all the talk of a long diplomatic process, of economic sanctions and political isolation, at the end of this road lies the opening of another front in America's "Long War."
The Egyptian IAEA chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, implicitly acknowledged the high risks at stake when he appealed to both Western and Iranian leaders on March 7 to "lower the rhetoric" and adopt a "cool-headed approach." But, as the Iranian dossier now moves to the U.N. Security Council, there is little sign of such an approach either in Tehran or in Washington.
"The Iranian regime needs to know," Dick Cheney told the annual policy conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington on March 7, "that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences. For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
Pressed by reporters on whether Cheney's "meaningful consequences" meant military action, hapless White House press spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that the vice president was merely "stating our policy".
But Cheney's message, delivered with symbolic, if not verbal, precision against the backdrop of a massive graphic of the Israeli national flag merging into the Stars and Stripes, was clear enough: the United States will use military force if diplomacy and economic pressure do not persuade the Iranian government to back down.
Two days later, on March 9, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice further raised the temperature, reiterating her claim that Iran is the Middle East's "central banker for terrorism."
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," she said, "whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East that we would like to see develop."
The problem with the United States' confrontational approach to Iran is that it is based on a misreading of the internal situation in Iran and on an over-confident assessment of the strategic position of the United States in the region in the aftermath of the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Diplomatic pressure, far from bringing about a change of heart in Tehran, is already strengthening the domestic political position of the hardliners around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reinforcing their determination to press ahead with their nuclear enrichment plans in defiance of the United States, Europe and Israel. Furthermore, President Bush's nuclear deal with India has significantly undermined the diplomatic argument against Iran by blowing a hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Because of the size of Iran's shadow economy and its relative economic self-sufficiency, any economic sanctions against Iran will be ineffective and could further bolster the hardliners' internal political standing. Furthermore, as Iranian officials have pointed out, Iran's status as a major oil producer means that it is in a position to retaliate to economic sanctions in kind, pushing up the price of oil.
The scarcely veiled threat of U.S. military action is no more likely to deter Iran's hardliners. Ahmadinejad calculates, correctly, that a full-scale invasion of Iran is out of the question and that United States or Israeli air strikes would simply help to strengthen Iran's political position in the region and provide a pretext for further consolidation at home (e.g. a crackdown on political opponents). Furthermore, Iran could respond to military action by piling the pressure on the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, and on Israel from Lebanon and Palestine.
The absence of a cool-headed approach to the crisis on the part of Ahmadinejad and his supporters seems to be based on a very cool calculation of their own factional political interests within Iran's political maze and of Washington's strategic difficulties in the region.
All this points in one direction: at some point in the not too distant future, once the diplomatic process at the U.N. is exhausted and economic sanctions have failed to get the Iranians to change their tune, there won't be any options left on Washington's table except military ones. And Iran's leaders are probably right in their assessment that those options are not good ones.
U.S. firepower could do a lot of physical damage and might even put back Iran's nuclear programme by a few years. But it would also do a lot of political damage: to the prospects of political reform in Iran; to the stability of Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region; and to U.S. political and strategic standing in the world.
The United States is making the same mistakes with regard to Iran as those which it made with regard to Iraq. The consequences are likely to be just as fraught, and perhaps even more damaging.
Although several leading members of the neo-conservative movement, which provided the theoretical and intellectual underpinning for the invasion of Iraq, have now recanted and admitted they were wrong about Iraq, the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran is not getting the critical attention it deserves.
Washington has missed several good opportunities in recent years to engage with Iran and to influence internal Iranian politics in a positive and peaceful manner. It is unlikely that any more will present themselves now or that this U.S. administration will seek to engage in bold, transformational diplomacy with the Iranian government. That would count as appeasement in Washington's current political vocabulary.
So there is no serious debate about the credible alternatives to military action in Iran. The United States is drifting unnecessarily towards military confrontation with the largest and richest state in the Middle East, with grave implications for the future of Western relations with the Muslim world. And everyone is busily pretending that it is not happening.
Tom Porteous is a freelance writer and analyst who was formerly with BBC Africa and served as Conflict Management Advisor for Africa with the British Foreign Office.
"The United States is drifting unnecessarily towards military confrontation with the largest and richest state in the Middle East, with grave implications for the future of Western relations with the Muslim world. And everyone is busily pretending that it is not happening."
That's it, in a nutshell.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: I have as much right to be here as you, you rude ****.
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Post something relevant or piss off....
You might normally expect a person demanding relevence to have some inkling of the meaning of relevance.
Normally!
Posted by justin66 on :
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Personally, I think Good ol George has done a pretty good job with the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other AOR's. Being a Marine makes me biased. However, I truly believe in the way that things are being handled........along with a large population of the country. This country is in no way becoming even close to a Dictatorship. There are Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors out there in the field everyday, losing their lives.....
and they do it because they take pride in the country they live in and want to keep it safe.
The war on terror is no joke. My little brother, who is also a Marine, was killed on the 5th of January this year. The people we are at battle with are not even close to human. My little brother was killed by an idiot who strapped a bomb to his chest along with 20 lbs of ball bearings.
Rest in peace little brother.
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by justin66: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how ridiculous it may be. Personally, I think Good ol George has done a pretty good job with the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other AOR's. Being a Marine makes me biased. However, I truly believe in the way that things are being handled........along with a large population of the country. This country is in no way becoming even close to a Dictatorship. There are Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors out there in the field everyday, losing their lives.....
and they do it because they take pride in the country they live in and want to keep it safe.
The war on terror is no joke. My little brother, who is also a Marine, was killed on the 5th of January this year. The people we are at battle with are not even close to human. My little brother was killed by an idiot who strapped a bomb to his chest along with 20 lbs of ball bearings.
Rest in peace little brother.
i'm sorry to hear about your brother man. really.
since your a marine i have to ask.. do you think that particular person would have blew himself up if he didnt believe he was fighting for his country against people he sees as foreign invaders? i know for a fact if say, China tried to invade america in order to take bush out of power and instill a regime change i would be out there with all my guns trying any way possible to stop this invasion. (Even though i dont really want bush in power but i also dont want some other country dictating my country's politics..) ya know?
If china did try this would you fight against them or with them?
Posted by justin66 on :
The idiot who blew himself up was not fighting for his country. He was one of many who was part of a terrorist network. That guy wasn't fighting for his country. Many of the people we're fighting out there aren't even from Iraq. They're there to spite us. Most Iraqis out there want us to be there. I can't really explain it better than that. If you had been there before, you'd understand. The majority of Iraqis know that we're there to help them......not to blow up their country. We took an inhumane dictator out of power and now we're trying to give these people a better life. Most appreciate our efforts to make Iraq a better place.
Here's a sidenote for you. The person who blew himself up was targeting Iraqis who were standing in line to apply for jobs as policemen. My brother just happened to be the one guarding these people.
The subject of China doing this same thing to us doesn't make any sense. Our country hasn't experienced the same things that Iraq has experienced. We don't have a dictator that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
No, but we do have a PRESIDENT that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
quote:Originally posted by justin66: We don't have a dictator that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Are some of these people so brainwashed at a young age do they really know what they are fighting for, or are they fighting for someone that is using their ignorance? The one thing that amazes me is that these people do not realize that their higher ranking officers do not do these suicide bombings very often. Saddam did not take his own life for the cause. I wonder how many of these fighters are using those drugs they grow over there? that always has help in other wars for these suicide missions. I think sometimes we give these people more credit than they deserve, lets untie the hands of the military and i bet these suicide missions drop dramatically. Justin66 i hate to hear that sorry.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
That question could apply to the US Military.
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Are some of these people so brainwashed at a young age do they really know what they are fighting for, or are they fighting for someone that is using their ignorance?
Posted by justin66 on :
You have no ground to stand on to justify that statement. YOUR military is not forced to fight. When I signed the contract, I knew what I was getting myself into. It was my option to join YOUR military. I knew that my life could end from my actions, as did my brother. The US Military does not brainwash their recruits. Nor do they make people commit suicide for their country.
As I said earlier, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Gordon Bennett that's where we disagree, our soldiers do have to be condition when you go thru training in the military to get ready for combat, but you are never really ready, it is more of a game prior to combat, this is for their protection and they are not being told they can do anything they want. These suicide bombers are being fed this stuff at young ages with no rules to follow.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
But do they really know what they are fighting for?
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I can not answer for these soldiers, but when Vietnam was going on i think in general it was to do your duty for your country and to try and keep you and your fellow soldier alive. The less you get involved with the politics of the war the better you off we were as soldiers, you have enough problems to deal with in combat.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
That makes sense, and I agree. But why is it a different standard for the enemy? Why are they expected to understand, while our soldiers are not?
Posted by justin66 on :
Maybe you can tell me what we're fighting for, since I apparently don't know.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Gordon Bennett, I think maybe it to late for me to think this hard, i am not sure who "they" are? It appears that there are many different groups over in Iraq fighting, but other people have more upclose knowledge of that than me. Bottom line for me at this point of the war is that i feel we do not have a good plan to win or a good plan to exit, and i want to see these casualties stop.
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: No, but we do have a PRESIDENT that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
quote:Originally posted by justin66: We don't have a dictator that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
dont forget all his buddies who helped get him into office. and all the ultra convenient ties to the companies who get to rebuild everything we blow up and "lose" billions of dollars in the process. Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by turbokid:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: No, but we do have a PRESIDENT that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
quote:Originally posted by justin66: We don't have a dictator that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
don't forget all his buddies who helped get him into office. and all the ultra convenient ties to the companies who get to rebuild everything we blow up and "lose" billions of dollars in the process.
You leftists act like this is exclusive to the current administration.... Get over it liberals, this kind of abuse has been going on for a very long time. Democrats and Republicans alike. It's called politics.
Conveniently however, liberals only seem to take notice or admit the abuse occurs when the other side is in power.
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone it, just sick of you people acting like this is something new.
Remember Clinton and his donations from COMMUNIST CHINA?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:You leftists act like this is exclusive to the current administration.... Get over it liberals, this kind of abuse has been going on for a very long time. Democrats and Republicans alike. It's called politics.
Conveniently however, liberals only seem to take notice or admit the abuse occurs when the other side is in power.
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone it, just sick of you people acting like this is something new.
Remember Clinton and his donations from COMMUNIST CHINA?
so? are you now agreeing with my position that there is almost no difference beteween the political parties after all?
and that the few differences they do have? they blow all out of proportion and sensatioanlise them?
Posted by bond006 on :
The only really good thing that came out of this war was saddam was pulled out of a hole and his two welp brats got porked now we sould come home.
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources:
quote:Originally posted by turbokid:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: No, but we do have a PRESIDENT that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
quote:Originally posted by justin66: We don't have a dictator that takes advantage of his people for his own benefit.
don't forget all his buddies who helped get him into office. and all the ultra convenient ties to the companies who get to rebuild everything we blow up and "lose" billions of dollars in the process.
You leftists act like this is exclusive to the current administration.... Get over it liberals, this kind of abuse has been going on for a very long time. Democrats and Republicans alike. It's called politics.
Conveniently however, liberals only seem to take notice or admit the abuse occurs when the other side is in power.
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone it, just sick of you people acting like this is something new.
Remember Clinton and his donations from COMMUNIST CHINA?
what makes you think im a leftist?? because i oppose government corruption? you can search around my previous posts i am no leftist or democrat i personally believe that no matter what "party" a politican comes from they are still a politican and therefor cannot be trusted, these people only get into office to make better more well-connected business deals, thats it. The government is nothing but legalised extortion as long as i pay my taxes they could give a damn less about me, and its kinda funny that any time the government finds a profitable business they make it illegal and do it themselves.. ie the lottery, marijuana.. previously run by the mafia and drug cartels now its reserved for state agencies and pfizer. (but now they get their cut)
So get off the us vs. them crap with the left/right im simply a citizen concerned for the well being of the country i live in...
btw. when bush leaves in 2008 do i think things will magically get better,rep.or dem. nope just the same crap from a different person. More theft,bribery,scandals,business deals,etc. its all about money.
Posted by glassman on :
can't yet Bond....
however? i do think any hope to set up a democracy in our image over there is a drug-induced pipe dream...
you can't "give" people freedom..
they have to be willing to die for it...
and somehow? the suicide bombers over there see death as freedom Posted by Swab Jockey on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?"
Yes, Iraq was not a threat!
Iraq was already a beaten country, essentially under complete control by the UN.
And before you go to the party line memo of talking points about the graft in the funds alloted Iraq for health requirements, etc., ballance that amount with just the over charges by Haliburton for just one month. Oh, you say, it won't ballance? Even for just a month's worth of Halibutron? Too short you say to match. Well, what do you know about that!
Korea was and is a threat. So was and is Iran. But our appointed king and his cadre of Iran/Contra veterans (criminals), can't handle even Iraq. Iraq posed NO danger to the US and was too well controled by the UN to be mush problem, even in the local area.
Get off the Party line propaganda machine.
Have you ever considered how far behind in achieving weapons that could threaten the world's peace Iran would be if this same cadre of war mongers in this administration had not, while working from the Reagan Administration, traded first class modern up to date US weapons and technical data on even more powerful weapons to Iran to get money to illegally fund the Contras?
Ever wondered if the reason these guys could feel so absolutely certain that Saddam had a cache of WMDs is because they gave him WMDs back when they were in the Reagan Administration? Poor guys, how could they know Saddam had done exactly like he said (and the records said, by the way) and destroyed them. Just can't trust those dictators, can you.
Posted by Swab Jockey on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?"
Yes, Iraq was not a threat!
Iraq was already a beaten country, essentially under complete control by the UN.
And before you go to the party line memo of talking points about the graft in the funds alloted Iraq for health requirements, etc., ballance that amount with just the over charges by Haliburton for just one month. Oh, you say, it won't ballance? Even for just a month's worth of Halibutron? Too short you say to match. Well, what do you know about that!
Korea was and is a threat. So was and is Iran. But our appointed king and his cadre of Iran/Contra veterans (criminals), can't handle even Iraq. Iraq posed NO danger to the US and was too well controled by the UN to be mush problem, even in the local area.
Get off the Party line propaganda machine.
Have you ever considered how far behind in achieving weapons that could threaten the world's peace Iran would be if this same cadre of war mongers in this administration had not, while working from the Reagan Administration, traded first class modern up to date US weapons and technical data on even more powerful weapons to Iran to get money to illegally fund the Contras?
Ever wondered if the reason these guys could feel so absolutely certain that Saddam had a cache of WMDs is because they gave him WMDs back when they were in the Reagan Administration? Poor guys, how could they know Saddam had done exactly like he said (and the records said, by the way) and destroyed them. Just can't trust those dictators, can you.
Dont know what ur smoking but my guess It was the same thing Bill was smoking with Monica. prolly had a real high THC content. If you read or listen to the news lately, we recovered tapes that leave no doubt whatsoever that he had WMD's and that he managed to hide from the UN and/or move shortly b4 invasion. Course that means nothing if your determined to avoid letting facts get in the way of a good political argument.
Posted by glassman on :
we recovered tapes that leave no doubt whatsoever that he had WMD's and that he managed to hide from the UN
my understanding of the FULL interpretation of those tapes is just the opposite:
Saddam managed to conceal from some of his own people that he had destroyed all of the WMD.
if you are refering to his son's bragging about the fact that "obody knows how much WMD" they had? this fits with a braggards profile. consider also that these nuts were very paranoid about being attacked by Iran or other countries in the area and needed to maintain a facade....
this recent news peice brings some very interesting "stuff" to the table:
Saddam-era foreign minister denies spying for CIA
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Thursday, March 23, 2006
AMMAN: Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister under Saddam Hussein, denied Wednesday a report he provided the CIA with information about the deposed regime's alleged weapons of mass destruction. "The information carried by the American channel NBC are lies, totally fabricated and unfounded," Sabri told AFP in a telephone interview, in his first public remarks since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"After the lies about the weapons of mass destruction which do not exist and the alleged links with Al-Qaeda, it seems that this new lie is aimed at giving a new fake pretext to justify the crime of the century: the invasion of Iraq."
NBC reported on Monday that Sabri spied for the CIA and traded information on Saddam's alleged weapons program in return for a $100,000 payment, in a French-sponsored New York City hotel room meeting. U.S. intelligence agents believe Sabri was fully aware he was selling information to the CIA, the report said.
before you scoff: consider that we never went after this guy after we invaded Iraq... he was never "in the deck of cards" and he is still running around free Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Swab Jockey:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?"
Yes, Iraq was not a threat!
Iraq was already a beaten country, essentially under complete control by the UN.
And before you go to the party line memo of talking points about the graft in the funds alloted Iraq for health requirements, etc., ballance that amount with just the over charges by Haliburton for just one month. Oh, you say, it won't ballance? Even for just a month's worth of Halibutron? Too short you say to match. Well, what do you know about that!
Korea was and is a threat. So was and is Iran. But our appointed king and his cadre of Iran/Contra veterans (criminals), can't handle even Iraq. Iraq posed NO danger to the US and was too well controled by the UN to be mush problem, even in the local area.
Get off the Party line propaganda machine.
Have you ever considered how far behind in achieving weapons that could threaten the world's peace Iran would be if this same cadre of war mongers in this administration had not, while working from the Reagan Administration, traded first class modern up to date US weapons and technical data on even more powerful weapons to Iran to get money to illegally fund the Contras?
Ever wondered if the reason these guys could feel so absolutely certain that Saddam had a cache of WMDs is because they gave him WMDs back when they were in the Reagan Administration? Poor guys, how could they know Saddam had done exactly like he said (and the records said, by the way) and destroyed them. Just can't trust those dictators, can you.
Dont know what ur smoking but my guess It was the same thing Bill was smoking with Monica. prolly had a real high THC content. If you read or listen to the news lately, we recovered tapes that leave no doubt whatsoever that he had WMD's and that he managed to hide from the UN and/or move shortly b4 invasion. Course that means nothing if your determined to avoid letting facts get in the way of a good political argument.
Well, I know what you are drinking. It's the Republican Party line brand of koolade that fools believe makes all those absurd lies palatable.
I didn't know that drinking that stuff effected the hearing and the logic, but it's cleaar you didn't hear them because they say absolutley nothing that supports the lies the Administration has told about Iraq and Saddam.
Hey. stop the drinking long enough to hear the truth and the facts. Bush was told by reliable sources that all his BS about Saddam was exactly that. b--l s--t. It's still b--l s--t when you repeat it now.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Originally posted by bdgee: "So Iraq under Saddam wasn't a threat eh? He was contained "inside the box"?"
Yes, Iraq was not a threat!
Iraq was already a beaten country, essentially under complete control by the UN.
quote:The Russian government collected intelligence from sources inside the American military command as the U.S. mounted the invasion of Iraq, and the Russians fed information to Saddam Hussein on troop movements and plans, according to Iraqi documents cited in a Pentagon report released Friday.
quote:Iraqi documents released as part of the Pentagon report asserted that the Russians relayed information to Saddam through their ambassador in Baghdad during the opening days of the war in late March and early April 2003, including a crucial time before the ground assault on Baghdad.
NR needs to learn to read and learn what things say rather than continually reporting that trash talk he gets from Fat Rush the Doper and the Nazi Party of America.
That BS he's refering to and claiming the Russians were secreting to Saddam was being reported publically on our own news programs, reporting on what our own military was saying openly, which probably is where the Russians got it. My God, the koolade drinkers memories is as faulty as the memory of their Lord and Master, Sir dubya, The Great Prevaricator.
Posted by bond006 on :
Iraq was never a military threat to the US and that is a military fact look how easy they went down. They were much to the bad luck of the Iraq people sitting on a pile of oil and they were a threat to there neighbors who were just as militarty wise a bunch of 2nd rate 3rd world loosers of a foe who still should be fighting with swords at least they understand that tech. You know the history you can give a pig a state of the art tank but if a pig can't use it all you have is a pig and a tank.
Posted by glassman on :
i heard the same reports....
the Russians were DIS-informing Sadam... LOL.... they convinced him to sit in Baghdad and wait for US....
Remember? when President George W. Bush gazed into the eyes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and decided he knew the man's soul, here was a man he could trust?
Posted by bdgee on :
What's really amazing and mind boggling is that these Party Loyalist are still trying to get people to believe that Saddam was even a whisper of a problem and going into Iraq was a worthy cause FOR ANY REASON.
BUSH LIED! That's the sum and total of it.
Historians in the future may differ on why he did, but not the futality of the invasion or the deceptions.
Posted by bond006 on :
Who in there right mind would not accept the fact that Bush lied he can say over and over that he did not, and some will believe but if you do not turn a blind eye to the truth there is no doubt HE LIED. And lots of people lost there lives because of it and the world is a less secure place to live because of it.
bdgee the only reason that the kool-aide dinkers say Iraq was a worthy cause is the fact that the majority don't have to and won't go and serve . I know these people like I know the back of my hand I work with a lot of them they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.
Posted by kilhs on :
American troops defend dictators.
September 11, 2001 Soudi Arabian terrorists attack America While 20,000 American troops were deployed in Soudi Arabia to Protect King Saad from the Soudi people.
At the World Trade Center Towers in New York City and The Pentagon Americans were dying. While the troops in Soudi Arabia were enjoying imported Philapino prostitutes, and getting drunk.
Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emerates, and many other dictatorships also enjoy the protection of American troops and millitary aid.The people of these countrys have suffered long enough. And they need freedom a bill of rights and a constitution, and then ellections. Not like in Iraq where the people voted in their next dictator. And all natural resources are controlled by the government, and all contracts for transporting and distributing the resources are government controlled. Its like the Bush admin started its own commi \ facist police state in Iraq
Posted by NaturalResources on :
BUMP
Posted by trade04 on :
great reading here i just want to add my 2 cents. Because i wasn't aware of this thread even less the forum for all talk. but ive though before how they never found wmd, they couldnt link hussein to anything, this was a personal war for bush. and I KNOW that if some country invaded us and took our president, the country would be pissed like who the hell do they think they are...then u got these people occupying our country so what do people start doing? rioting...acting out....killers able to kill with minimal risk...thats whats going on now in iraq....bush is the real CRIMINAL should be charged with kidnapping, and exploitation, and i dunno what else to say!
Posted by glassman on :
impeachment may be a possibility...
if i may make suggestion?
in the best interest of the security of our whole Nation, and the rest of the free world??
any impeachmant proceedings should be timed carefully with the election cycle to avoid a debilitating power vacuum....
look at the history and long -term impact of watergate...
IMO? it's also important that Bush be stripped of pardonning powers...
Posted by bdgee on :
"IMO? it's also important that Bush be stripped of pardonning powers..."
I don't see much real value in impeaching the fool, but finding a way to stop the pardons of this bunch is important.
Just how many of his "crew" already have been saved from federal prison terms by previous pardons and hanky-panky by congressional committees? I haven't counted, but instead of serving the time they earned, they populate the Administration and the sunday TV talk shows making mega-bucks.
Posted by glassman on :
I haven't counted, but instead of serving the time they earned, they populate the Administration and the sunday TV talk shows making mega-bucks
yup...
and spend all their time trying to convince US that the "liberal media" is destroying our great nation too.. sheeesh.. i just want justice..no more, no less..
Posted by trade04 on :
if bush is impeached wouldnt cheney just step in???
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
