CIA airstrike on a border village.

[Legend]

I'm sorry but killing innocent women and children is fucking wrong. 17 people were killed in this damn strike. The attack was supposely targeted at al-Qaida's second-in-command. Are these guys that damn important that it is ok to just bomb villages. Wasnt those the guys killing innocent people and not us.

[yourdaddy]

Excellent !!!! Hope they got the target, Al Zawahiri. The islamists always say there were innocent women and children targeted.

[Legend]

Excellent !!!! Hope they got the target, Al Zawahiri. The islamists always say there were innocent women and children targeted.

The guy was even in the fucking village. So its not excellent. Only innocent women and chrildren.

[DJ_Asia]

From the initial reports this appears to be yet another royal fuck-up by the US military,and more"faulty intelligence"

No Al-Qaeda members were present,and all casualties appear to be civilian,many women and kids. Pakistan who has been helping us quite a bit in this "war on terror" is deservedly pissed off!

This shit just keeps getting better and better!

DJ Asia

[brickcitybrother]

The developments ... as they come in, all seem to be very unfortunate. I think it will take some time before all of the facts are sorted out.

[scipio]

The news reports said it was a CIA-launched attack - the US military denies any knowledge of it.

WTF - do the CIA have an army of their own now?

To the "Excellent" comment above - you are a sick man.

[T-chaser]

Its funny how the Bush administration pushes its Christain based values and how Karl Rove (satan himself) suckered in so many voters respectively; because any person that truly follows the words of Christ would believe and know that all men are created equal, as well as supporting the belief of do unto others as they have done unto you (the Golden Rule). What have 100,000 Innocent Iraqis done to us? What happened to the golden rule? How can any true Christian or just any moderately spiritual person really support this administration and what they are doing to our fellow humans? If we attack Iran for Oil (under the facade of them being a nuclear threat).. get ready for World War III.

[T-chaser]

One more thing, if the American people really knew how many civilians died every week at the hands of our men and our indiscriminate airstrikes, the war would come to a screeching halt within a couple of weeks. 98% of the war is not covered by the media. Why would it be, the media is owned by these aholes.

[jamans]

Blame it on Bush...I am not sure, but I think he is also responsible for AIDS, the bird flu, last years tsunami, both destructive hurricanes this year, he tried to set a volcano off in Alaska recently, the Pakistan/India earthquake, is responsible for Iran's nuke situation.

Bush....A bad man

If only you people would have been around when Kerry was trying to run (oh wait, he did win, cept the election was rigged) then maybe you would be you could of opened more eyes and claimed a victory. With Kerry...no AIDS, natural disasters, Iraqi insurgants would be peaceful only hoping to get a chance for a escort with a t-girl.

Life is a conspiracy......

[T-chaser]

Its funny, because oil acts as a natural lubricant for the tectonic plates (like synovial fluid in our knee joints). Oil prevents tectonic contact and ultimately reduces the severity of earthquakes. So, Bush's neocon philosophy of exploiting all of the earth's oil and supressing funding for alternative energy research, actually does lead to a higher frequency of earthquakes.... ha. Of course the republican dominated dept. of energy would not support free energy or zero point energy research.... there is no money to be made in it. Greedy bastards

[T-chaser]

Bush... a bad man? Ask any of the Iraqi moms whose children's bodies have been mutated by our dpleted uranium ammunition deposits or deformed at his EVIL deeds. Go on and support em. Get all your liberties taken away untill there are none left.., under the fear mongering of terror. Is that what its going to take?

[Felicia Katt]

As others have posted here before, when Clinton launched a strike against a terrorist training camp, hoping to hit Osama, and missed, people cried out and condemned it as an attempt to distract from his politcal problems, Now when Bush launches an attack against a home, killing civilians, but misses his actual target, during a time when his party is embroiled in a massive scandal, those same voices stay silent.

A contradiction, not a conspiracy.

FK

[jamans]

Bush... a bad man? Ask any of the Iraqi moms whose children's bodies have been mutated by our dpleted uranium ammunition deposits or deformed at his EVIL deeds. Go on and support em. Get all your liberties taken away untill there are none left.., under the fear mongering of terror. Is that what its going to take?

Show me actual proof of the mutations...and not some link to a anti-business organisation like amnesty international.

As far as your liberties...how has this affected you PERSONALLY???

You can still own a gun can't you???

[T-chaser]

Your wish is my command... warning, graphic stuff
http://www.uksociety.org/us_crimes_against-humanity_1.htm

http://apex-united.com/DU-Americas_death_to_the_world/

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/kosovo/chossudovsky_lowintensity.html

[T-chaser]

Wait, aren't they covering the depleted uranium story on Fox News? LOL

Hey Jamans, minimizing civil rights does not lead to liberty, only tyranny. ever heard of the THIRD REICH??? I am done posting on this topic now; it is useless to argue with thick individuals.

[Felicia Katt]

Amnesty International's Mission Statement

Amnesty's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental
integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination--in the context of our work to promote all human rights, as
articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I didn't realize being against torture, rape, slavery, female genital mutilation, killing wives who seek divorce, and polticial and religious imprisonment and persecution was an anti-business agenda.

I guess as long you are ok personally, who cares what happens to anyone else? Thats some philosophy. I think I'd rather follow this one:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

and the right to bear arms is the Second Amendment. The First one is the one that talks about free speech, freedom of association, freedom of worship a free press and all those other "anti business" things that Amnesty International meddles in.

FK

[DJ_Asia]

Blame it on Bush...I am not sure, but I think he is also responsible for AIDS, the bird flu, last years tsunami, both destructive hurricanes this year, he tried to set a volcano off in Alaska recently, the Pakistan/India earthquake, is responsible for Iran's nuke situation.

Bush....A bad man

If only you people would have been around when Kerry was trying to run (oh wait, he did win, cept the election was rigged) then maybe you would be you could of opened more eyes and claimed a victory. With Kerry...no AIDS, natural disasters, Iraqi insurgants would be peaceful only hoping to get a chance for a escort with a t-girl.

Life is a conspiracy......

Blame it on Bush?!?

Considering this was a military fuck-up,and the president is in fact Commander in Chief, that would make this yet another Bush fuck up!Would it not?!

DJ Asia

[BlackAdder]

My GOD jamans....you are a total piece of shit arent you lol?? Dude, youve no clue it seems...


Yes, the CIA does have its own psuedo-military, they can take command of military assets and they have access to all the latest hardware like predator hunter killers. Anyone involved is strictly bound by national security interests. All courtesy of the Patriot Act, although when I think about it...they had all that stuff before, the Act just made them legit instead of black ops.

[samstl99]

just my input. My Cousin is actually a field agent and has been in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cant say exactly what he was doing there..... anyway.

A couple of things. Is Bush responsible.. Ultimately yes.. But remember he is just a figure head and his decisions are only as good as the info that is provided to him. Blame the Cabinet more than Bush. Granted it is his Cabinet.. so he is ultimately responsible.

Now onto Oil.. The theory of oil effecting the tetonic plates is ridiculous. The pressure built in the earths crust is immense. And earhtquakes are the effect of the plates moving.. and colliding with each other. It isnt like the oil would allow plates that are miles thick to slide past each other.

Now as Big business is making money on the rebuild of Iraq... Iraq is NOT about Oil.. At least not directly. Remember that US get ZERO oil from Iraq. Iraq exports oil to Germany, France, and other European nations. THe US gets NONE. Now the stability in the Middle East does effect our overall price of oil. Kuwait WAS about Oil. The Majority of the oil that the US gets actually is coming from South America through Venezuela. We only get about 30% of our oil from OPEC. And the Oil that we get out of Alaska is sold to Japan because Japan has no trade agreement with anyone for Oil. Canada is sitting on the second largest known Oil deposit in the world (many believe that Russias is by far the largest, and South Amercia and Middle East would be second.. but they cannot confirm that). Yet Canada refuses to help their ally in the US, and continues to do nothing with increasing their oil output. Currently Canada's oil production is at about 50% - 65% efficiency.

Lots of things going on her.

Now onto the attrocities.

As my cousin has been there.. seen it. experienced it. Let me say this. VERY Few are innocent people. Just because they lived in a village and looked like farmers, most of the Men are usually enlisted somewhere in Iraq. Just like in VIetnam.. every person is a possible enemy. He has been shot at by a group of IRaq's that were no older than 16. Is he not to shoot back? What would you do?

If they are harbouring Osama.. then they are are just as guilty as he is.

No one likes to see someone innocent die. Remember 9/11 and the men of our armed forces dying everyday. Dont taint their memory.. and do not de value what they have given up.. so we can have the life that we all have.

Lets wait for the details.. and make our judegements then.

[Felicia Katt]

here are some details:

Pakistani officials said that there was no evidence any al-Qaeda fighters, were among the 18 victims

The dead were reported to include four children, aged between five and ten, and at least two women.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1686918,00.html

It looks like all 18 victims were innocent, but did you really want to argue that those 4 dead kids were deserving of their fate??

They say the devil is in the details. I say he was somewhere over Pakistan, guiding a missile into an innocent home, killing 18 blameless people based on faulty intelligence.

FK

[marquis999]

I'm not posting this in defense of Bush, who I largely find indefensible. If we did attack based on intelligence received from Packistani Intelligence Services, then this was probably a setup. Packistani Intelligence is friendlier towards Al-Qaeda and the Taliban than they are to their own government or any supporters of the US. I saw an article on a Sunday morning news program that reiterated this very thing.

If this village was anti-taliban and anti- Al-Qaeda, then it is entirely likely that the PIS fed bad information to punish the village while making the US look bad at the same time.

I find this theory easier to believe than the theory that Iraqis will welcome the United States as liberators.

[yourdaddy]

Go C.I. A., Never stop going after those bastards. They would kill you liberal pussies in an INSTANT.

[Legend]

Go C.I. A., Never stop going after those bastards. They would kill you liberal pussies in an INSTANT.


Your pathetic man, "go cia" you sound like a damn cheerleader, you seem like the kind of pathetic loser that would kill innocent women and children.

[The American Nightmare]

Go C.I. A., Never stop going after those bastards. They would kill you liberal pussies in an INSTANT.
You're either in serious need of therapy, or a troll.

Either way, you deserve to be banned. Applauding the death of four innocent children? Let's not ignore why he's so happy: It's because they're brown.

[Felicia Katt]

The CIA doesn't operate inside the US, so I guess we liberal pussies are safe from them for now. That job would fall to the FBI. Fortunately they are more concerned headshops and pornography, especially in Florida (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389), than with suppressing legitimate political discussion.

We know he likes porn, he's from Florida and he posts as if he were on drgus, so if anyone should worry about that knock at the door, it should be Yourdaddy.

FK

[samstl99]

Agreed that the loss of children lives is a terrible thing. But the woman you have to stand back and not pass judgement. Just because they are Muslim doesnt mean that women are not an intrical part of Terrorism.u 3 Car bombings in Iraq where carried off by groups that included women. So there were 18 people and 4 were children. So how does that make the rest of them automatically innocent.

Remember that Saddam Hussein and other Dictators surround themselves with innocents to use them as Human shields. So who is worse... the entity that tries to take out the bad guy and some innocent people get hurt but they were not the target... or the Bad guy that purposely puts children in front... to protect them from harm, to use them as Shields.. figuring that a) no one will shoot becuase they are surrounded by kids... or b) that the kids will get hit and shield them.

So who is the real bad guy??

Again.. i agree that it is awful that the kids were killed in this. But unfortuantely.. it does happen. How many kids were killed during the Blitzkreig on Britain.. as bombs dropped?.. or how many were killed in Hiroshima... or how many were killed in Vietnam... etc... War is a Dirty Dirty Dirty awful business, and no one ever WINS... but war is necessary to limit one's losses.

[Legend]

Agreed that the loss of children lives is a terrible thing. But the woman you have to stand back and not pass judgement. Just because they are Muslim doesnt mean that women are not an intrical part of Terrorism.u 3 Car bombings in Iraq where carried off by groups that included women. So there were 18 people and 4 were children. So how does that make the rest of them automatically innocent.

Remember that Saddam Hussein and other Dictators surround themselves with innocents to use them as Human shields. So who is worse... the entity that tries to take out the bad guy and some innocent people get hurt but they were not the target... or the Bad guy that purposely puts children in front... to protect them from harm, to use them as Shields.. figuring that a) no one will shoot becuase they are surrounded by kids... or b) that the kids will get hit and shield them.

So who is the real bad guy??

Again.. i agree that it is awful that the kids were killed in this. But unfortuantely.. it does happen. How many kids were killed during the Blitzkreig on Britain.. as bombs dropped?.. or how many were killed in Hiroshima... or how many were killed in Vietnam... etc... War is a Dirty Dirty Dirty awful business, and no one ever WINS... but war is necessary to limit one's losses.

Sam please stfu they weren't even looking for a women they were looking for a damn old man who wasn't even there. You fuckers would do anything to kill one guy like bomb hundreds of villages. You sound like the typical war buff win by any means necessary.

Dude this isn't 1940 so you can't compare those wars to this shit.

[Felicia Katt]

Did you read the article? The people weren't terrorists, or soldiers. They were jewelers and shopkeepers. They weren't harboring anyone.

The real bad guy in the Blitzkrieg was Hitler. For Hiroshima, Truman, For Vietnam, Nixon, mostly. For this tragedy.... Somehow I don't think the buck for this will stop at Bush's desk. but it should.


FK

[samstl99]

You all have my posts wrong. I think it is awful that the innocent lives were lost. But you have to actually READ what is being said.

First off Do you actually believe Everything you read? If all reports that were given to the papers were 100% accurate then Osama would be a hero and there would be supposedly no wrong in the world except of course the US governement. You have to remember that EVERY periodical has an agenda that they write to.

Now reading the article, if you read it carefully, the room that was targeted was room that is used to meet with guests. And it is in an area that has no law, and has historically been run by people in the Opium buisness. Sound familar? The Taliban were the controllers of all Opium in the region. Yes they did not find anyone that was a known forgeigner, however they never said that they were not Nationals that were sympathetic to Al-Queada. Of course the villagers will say that no one was there.. (the same things were told to US Investigators during Vietnam... and yet many men died because women, children, and villagers opened fire on them). The history of the area has to be taken into consideration.

You forgot to talk about this quote.

One Pakistani official, speaking anonymously, told The Observer that hours before the strike some unidentified guests had arrived at one home and that some bodies had been removed quickly after the attack.

This coming from the government that is upset at the attack. So I guess you just want to believe what you want out of the story.

Obviously there were "eyes" on the ground. Meaning there were operatives at the Village that confirmed "Forgeigners" Seeing as this is such a remote place, visotors isnt a common thing. And it appears that the area was being watched for several days so a Rash decision was not made.

All I am saying is look past the obvious and read into what was published.. and what was referenced but not clarified.. and also what was NOT published. Keep an open mind THEN make your decisions.

Again, I think innocent lives being lost is a terrible thing. Dont assume, just because a Free World Newspaper reports how innocent everyone was, that everything is as they say it was.

[scipio]

samstl99:

You are such a hypocrite. Let's take another scenario - an attack by Iran on the United States. They blow up a strip mall in Alabama because they had information that US Soldiers would be there. They weren't, but there were about 12 women and 5 children there who were killed.

Would you say "Well, I regret that the children were killed, but the women could have been married to a soldier, so we can't pass judgement on the Iranians because they are not necessarily innocent."

Oh yeah, smart guy, human shields exist. But they weren't used in this case (and Saddam Hussein wasn't using themagains the Americans either.)
Does the fact that some people have use "human shields" now justify the slaughter of innocent women and children because they "might" be a human shield.

This is the attitude of an inhuman monster. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[samstl99]

Felicia,,, you are right for the most part.

Hitler was the evil in regards to the Blitzkreig,

Hiroshima ultimatley WAS Truman for dropping the bomb... But we would Never have been in that situation had the Japanese never attacked us without cause. Hell they had Ambassadors negotiating with the US on Dec 6th. And let me ask you this, as awful as the BOMB was..and 100,000s of Japanese people died. Do you realize what was saved by this event? 100,000s of US soldiers lives were saved. The horror of what happened made everyone aware of how awful Nuclear Warfare would be. So there would never be a World Power Nuclear war (US vs Russia) of course that was not part of the consideration at the time. Why do we forget the countless lives that were lost on Dec 7th? Before dropping the BOMB.. Japan was SHOWN what the capabilities of the Fat man and Little Boy were. THEY SAW the devastation that would befall their country.. YET They refused to stop attacking, to back off. As much as Truman was ultimately at fault for dropping it... Japan was even more at fault for the intial cause for war.. and being soo arrogant as to not surrender when they were Shown first hand what will happen.

[samstl99]

samstl99:

You are such a hypocrite. Let's take another scenario - an attack by Iran on the United States. They blow up a strip mall in Alabama because they had information that US Soldiers would be there. They weren't, but there were about 12 women and 5 children there who were killed.

Would you say "Well, I regret that the children were killed, but the women could have been married to a soldier, so we can't pass judgement on the Iranians because they are not necessarily innocent."

Oh yeah, smart guy, human shields exist. But they weren't used in this case (and Saddam Hussein wasn't using themagains the Americans either.)
Does the fact that some people have use "human shields" now justify the slaughter of innocent women and children because they "might" be a human shield.

This is the attitude of an inhuman monster. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Are you kidding me? Your reasoning Terrible. First off you are Not comparing apples to apples. Tell me how those US Soldiers attacked innocent people without cause? Never has the US government attacked family members of Terrorists.. unless they were involved. yes Human Shields are used by terrorists all the time. Does that mean that we should not try to take them out? They PURPOSELY meet in villages.. thinking that we wont attack them. Nothing justifies the killing of innocent people. BUT it IS a casualty of war. That is the fact. It sucks I know it. But what are the choices?.. It is easy to BITCH about things. and never give solutions. How would you try to find Al Quaeda? I guess you would just let him run free.. so he can kill another 10000 US citizens on their way to work.

I Tell you what. If you are a US citizen... how the hell do you think you got the rights to do what you do,,, say what you say... and live like you live. you are Living the life you have because of the blood of 100,000s of US Soldiers that died for your freedom. War is not NOBLE it is ugly. We did NOT start the war with Al-Quaeda. We did not start the conflict in Iraq (remember Saddam invading Kuwait.. and slaughtering 1000s of people).

People just want to stand up and say how righteous they are... and they dont see the forest for the Trees. If you think we are doing a country soo much injustice.. Go and live there... and lets see how your opinions will be dealt with there.


I didnt think so.

[samstl99]

[quote="scipio"]


Oh yeah, smart guy, human shields exist. But they weren't used in this case (and Saddam Hussein wasn't using themagains the Americans either.)

Are Serious? Tell me you did NOT say this. EVERYtime Saddam goes in public he is surrounded by Children and a mass of people. what you dont see is the armed soldiers rounding them up telling them to surround Saddam and yell how great he is. (YESS THIS IS A FACT) During the initial attack on Iraq there is NEWS footage of this happening. THAT is a HUMAN SHIELD.

ALL of his weapons plants and depots were startegically placed to ward off bombings. He had his Intelligence HQ in a COLLEGE, he had an Arms warehouse in the middle of a residential neighborhood. He had a SCUD manufacturing Plant next a Landmark Mosque... THESE are ALL hUman Shields These Terrorists are Cowards.. They HIDE behind women and children because they think the Soft hearted Americans wont do anything.

Also I never said that the women were an acceptable loss because they were married to a Terrorist. I just said dont assume thier innocence just because they were women.

Get your facts straight.

[chefmike]

These messages brought to you by FOX news... we distort, you decide.

[scipio]

Whether I am comparing Apples to Apples or Oranges is, in this case, irrelevant, believe it or not.

Your response highlights what is actually behind my post - the fact that you are unable or unwilling to see the "other" side of the equation. You cannot see this through the eyes of someone from the Middle East, for example, or even visualize the other side committing similar actions, and giving similar "justifications" for those actions. Whether they are identical or not is immaterial - they are SIMILAR, enough for a comparison.

BTW, the "human shield" of Sadam being out in public surrounded by people is not a Human Shield. Its crass PR on his part, to be broadcast on Iraqi TV to show everyone how "popular" he is. What, you think he had those hundreds of people all around him wherever he went? Fool.

[scipio]

Saddam Hussein, whatever else he might have been (a "bad man" for sure) was not a terrorist. It's typical of your right-wing spin, but actually he was OPPOSED to terrorists. The crazies (including OBL) thought he was essentially an infidel. He was probably one of the biggest bulwarks AGAINST terrorism in the Middle East.

The invasion of Iraq made that country a MAGNET for terrorists. And it helps recruit plenty more in the rest of the Middle East ("The infidel is at our gates!", etc.)

Solutions? Don't invade Iraq. Stop torturing people. Give everyone a fair trial, in public. Stop spying on your own citizens.

No! I hear you say, we need those "tools" for our "war on terror". Bollocks. The USA survived for almost two centuries without resorting to such base means, and for that time was a beacon of freedom and hope for the world. No shit. I actually believe that.

[George Costanza]

The news reports said it was a CIA-launched attack - the US military denies any knowledge of it.

WTF - do the CIA have an army of their own now?

How come the US Navy has fighter jets, but the airforce doesn't have submarines? :lol:

[samstl99]

FYI on Hussein.

HE DID pay and Fund an Terrorist camp in Northern Iraq. One of their missions was to Assassinate Bush Sr. This is a known entity. ALSO he was sympathetic to other Terrorists causes, as evident in the amount of Syrian, Egyptian, and Saudi Nationals that were in Iraq PRE War. They were known terrorists, and had camps in all parts of Iraq. (Remember that some "Loyalist Arabs" disliked that their countries were doing business with the "Jew Loving" US. (like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan etc.

The Hatred for the US mainly Stems from our support of Israel.

[scipio]

The Hatred for the US mainly Stems from our support of Israel.

Not any more, my fine humanitarian friend. Now they have a much better one. Smart move.

[samstl99]

I agree that having people around him was to show how popular and loved he was. But also he would NEVER been seen in public without a crowd during the war. I was only referring to his public appearances during the war before he went into hiding.

He knew that the chances of him being assassinated were slim if he was surrounded by hoardes of people. He fails to realize that US policy forbids planned assassination of a foreign Leader. (Definition of this is to kill him when apprehention is a possible means).

[scipio]

The news reports said it was a CIA-launched attack - the US military denies any knowledge of it.

WTF - do the CIA have an army of their own now?

How come the US Navy has fighter jets, but the airforce doesn't have submarines? :lol:

Because airforce pilots don't like to get their hair wet.

[samstl99]

Again you are wrong.

yes Al-Queada is asking us to get out of Iraq, but the MAIN reason for them attacking us IS because of our Support of Israel. It is in every message that comes out of Bin Laden. He wants us to give the land back to the Palestinians. and kick Israel out.

The hatred for Israel is ages old. Yes they dont like us in Iraq, but once we are out, the motive is gone.

Tell me how the new Iraq is Not good for Iraq? Tell me how they were better off with Hussein in power....

Do I agreee on why we went to war in Iraq.. not really. but we are there. and I support the troops that are there.. .doing their duty unconditionally for our country. I will always support the Troops.

FYI.. I am NOT a BUSH Fan.... so dont mis read that I am.

[samstl99]

The news reports said it was a CIA-launched attack - the US military denies any knowledge of it.

WTF - do the CIA have an army of their own now?

How come the US Navy has fighter jets, but the airforce doesn't have submarines? :lol:


I cant asnwer that But I do hear that they Have alot Of Seamen. LOL

[chefmike]

The Hatred for the US mainly Stems from our support of Israel.

Which is now matched by the hatred generated by our invasion of Iraq.

And what the fuck are you thinking, mentioning the blood shed by our military in past wars, with the needless waste of our men and womens lives in the neocon invasion of Iraq?

[chefmike]

And before you give me that America love it or leave it horseshit...
I served four years on the flight deck of the USS Kitty Hawk...
I'll criticize this insanity as much as I see fit.

[samstl99]

The Hatred for the US mainly Stems from our support of Israel.

Which is now matched by the hatred generated by our invasion of Iraq.

And what the fuck are you thinking, mentioning the blood shed by our military in past wars, with the needless waste of our men and womens lives in the neocon invasion of Iraq?

Really??... and what was WWII about? Why did we get involved? Any Answers? There was no threat to the US.

Answer... a US Ally was in need and we had a pact to protect them.. and we did. (exact same deal we had with Kuwait.... also the US was paid $30 Billion in cash for out involvement... to cover costs).

In WWII we got involved because resources that we used in Europe were in jeopardy.. so we got involved.. AND it was good for the economy. Any Economics person will tell you that War is good for the economy. (I am not condoning this.. but it is a fact).

Bottom line is that we DO have troops over there, and I support THEM.

Now you talk about the Neo-Conservative Invasion of Iraq... Hmmm lets see... so the Conservatives invaded Iraq?? And what did the Paleo-Libertarian Clinton do... HE INVADED IRAQ... pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait.. and INVADED Iraq... got all the way to Baghdad.. and then pulled out. (This by the way was the biggest mistake made.. as your Peace loving Libertarian... got the Iraqis that opposed Saddam together to overthrown him.. exposed them... and left them to be massacred. Great Humanitarian plan by your Paleo-Libs. We assured the Iraqi people that we would help them change their country... so they spoke out against Saddam and showed independance... and He Murdered.. Massacred... Raped... Imprisoned..... Tortured them.... Nice Job Libs.

[samstl99]

And before you give me that America love it or leave it horseshit...
I served four years on the flight deck of the USS Kitty Hawk...
I'll criticize this insanity as much as I see fit.

Good for you. ... Great that we can speak our mind.

The Take it or leave it was a Rhetorical statement.. meaning most US Citizens dont appreciate the liberties they have.. and at what cost they have them.. until they are on the outside looking in.

[chefmike]

The Hatred for the US mainly Stems from our support of Israel.

Which is now matched by the hatred generated by our invasion of Iraq.

And what the fuck are you thinking, mentioning the blood shed by our military in past wars, with the needless waste of our men and womens lives in the neocon invasion of Iraq?

Really??... and what was WWII about? Why did we get involved? Any Answers? There was no threat to the US.

Answer... a US Ally was in need and we had a pact to protect them.. and we did. (exact same deal we had with Kuwait.... also the US was paid $30 Billion in cash for out involvement... to cover costs).

In WWII we got involved because resources that we used in Europe were in jeopardy.. so we got involved.. AND it was good for the economy. Any Economics person will tell you that War is good for the economy. (I am not condoning this.. but it is a fact).

Bottom line is that we DO have troops over there, and I support THEM.

Now you talk about the Neo-Conservative Invasion of Iraq... Hmmm lets see... so the Conservatives invaded Iraq?? And what did the Paleo-Libertarian Clinton do... HE INVADED IRAQ... pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait.. and INVADED Iraq... got all the way to Baghdad.. and then pulled out. (This by the way was the biggest mistake made.. as your Peace loving Libertarian... got the Iraqis that opposed Saddam together to overthrown him.. exposed them... and left them to be massacred. Great Humanitarian plan by your Paleo-Libs. We assured the Iraqi people that we would help them change their country... so they spoke out against Saddam and showed independance... and He Murdered.. Massacred... Raped... Imprisoned..... Tortured them.... Nice Job Libs.

Hey dumbfuck...that happened under bush I, not clinton...get a fuckin clue.

[samstl99]

Chef Mike.

My apologies.. My point was that the US under Clinton did not support the coup that was started under Desert Storm. The killings happened under Clinton's watch.

I did mis speak stating that Clinton was in office for the actual War.

Should have made my point clearer.

[samstl99]

Yes I know I stated he invaded Iraq.. I was wrong on the Timeline. My apologies.

[chefmike]

And on top of your idiotic statement that clinton was prez during desert storm, you have the audacity to compare hitler's threat to the world with our invasion of iraq?

[samstl99]

And on top of your idiotic statement that clinton was prez during desert storm, you have the audacity to compare hitler's threat to the world with our invasion of iraq?

The confusion in my post was Desert Storm.. and I should have clarified it by saying I was referring to Clintons bombing of Iraq in 98. Remember that the Whole WMD thing Started with Clinton.

and I NEVER compared Hitlers threat to the world to Iraq. You are stretching there. I was talking about why we got involved.

[samstl99]

I was willing to make my apologies for my post that wasnt clear. But now that you didnt let it go.

I bet you didnt come out and bash Clinton in 98 did you? I guess that Liberal was correct at that time??

[scipio]

Again you are wrong.

yes Al-Queada is asking us to get out of Iraq, but the MAIN reason for them attacking us IS because of our Support of Israel. It is in every message that comes out of Bin Laden. He wants us to give the land back to the Palestinians. and kick Israel out.


You think that's "Al Qaeda" in Iraq? Yeah sure they're chiping in now - anything for another front against the USA. But initially? Totally disrelated. Perhaps it's too much for you that Bush's invasion of Iraq is actually FOSTERING and PROMOTING terrorism.

It's a civil war. And the "insurgency", at its roots, HAD nothing AT ALL to do with Al-Qaeda or terrorism. But, as they say, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It is shaping up so much like Vietnam it's amazing.

[samstl99]

Again you are wrong.

yes Al-Queada is asking us to get out of Iraq, but the MAIN reason for them attacking us IS because of our Support of Israel. It is in every message that comes out of Bin Laden. He wants us to give the land back to the Palestinians. and kick Israel out.


You think that's "Al Qaeda" in Iraq? Yeah sure they're chiping in now - anything for another front against the USA. But initially? Totally disrelated. Perhaps it's too much for you that Bush's invasion of Iraq is actually FOSTERING and PROMOTING terrorism.

It's a civil war. And the "insurgency", at its roots, HAD nothing AT ALL to do with Al-Qaeda or terrorism. But, as they say, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It is shaping up so much like Vietnam it's amazing.


Asnar Al-Islam is the camp found in Northern Iraq.. and they did find a ricin lab. the Ansar camp was an Al Quaeda Camp and there was physical links to to the 9/11 attacks.

[Felicia Katt]

Before dropping the BOMB.. Japan was SHOWN what the capabilities of the Fat man and Little Boy were. Japan was even more at fault for the intial cause for war.. and being soo arrogant as to not surrender when they were Shown first hand what will happen.
Sorry Sam, but your facts are wrong. The only warning was an unspecific one given at the The Potsdam Conference held in Potsdam, Germany (near Berlin), from July 17 to August 2, 1945. At it, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration which outlined the terms of surrender for Japan.
Towards the end of the conference, Japan was given an ultimatum (threatening "prompt and utter destruction", without mentioning the new bomb), and after Japan had rejected it, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, respectively. After the Hiroshima atomic attack (and before the Nagasaki atomic attack), President Truman issued the following statement:
"It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth."

Many scientists (including American nuclear physicist Edward Teller) argued that the destructive power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without the taking of lives, but the chosen target areas were known to be heavily populated by civilians.

As far whether the use of nuclear weapons was justified, thats something that will continue to be debated for years to come. I personally think it was not. I am not alone in this opinion. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[22] (pg. 312-313)"

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated'.

You get 10 days notice before you get evicted. The Japanese were given 4 days to surrender, unconditionally.


FK

[scipio]

Asnar Al-Islam is the camp found in Northern Iraq.. and they did find a ricin lab. the Ansar camp was an Al Quaeda Camp and there was physical links to to the 9/11 attacks.

Proof?

[yourdaddy]

You wouldn't know proof it if stuck it up your ass.

[scipio]

Won't feed the troll.... Won't feed the troll....

[yourdaddy]

Come on, I need stroking.

[chefmike]

You wouldn't know proof it if stuck it up your ass.

lmao...words of wisdom, from yourdaddygump...he's had bush stick it up his ass enough times to know what it feels like...

[yourdaddy]

Sorry waffle boy, but the only cock I ever had up my ass was a Tgurl cock. Jealous?????

[Felicia Katt]

The Sept. 11 commissions found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. The report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. Senior FBI officials and a senior CIA analyst concurred with these findings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Anar Islam is not a location, but is another terrorist organization operating in the northern area of Iraq which was largely under Kurdish control. Al Queda may had contacts with this group, but the group was never credibly connected with Saddam Hussein. Al Queda and Anar Islam have extremist radical fundamentalist religios philosophies. Saddam's Iraq was largely secular.

If you want to play connect the dots looking for links, one dot is Al Queda, and the rest of the dots are in Saudi Arabia. Iraq had as much to do with 9 11 as Mexico did with Pearl Harbor

FK

[Quinn]

Iraq had as much to do with 9 11 as Mexico did with Pearl Harbor.

FK

So true, Felicia, but you need to be careful making statements like this. Otherwise, some dim neocon might call for an invasion of Mexico next.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

Sorry waffle boy, but the only cock I ever had up my ass was a Tgurl cock. Jealous?????

Not really, yourdaddygump...ann coulter isn't my type.

[samstl99]

Felicia. While most of what you write is true. That Saddam was not directly linked to 9/11. However please do not tell me that Saddam as a Dictator and complete ruler of his country was ignorant of the the Terrorist camp in N Iraq. He knew they were there... and while he did not contribute he did allow them to function knowing full well that their intentions were to cause terror in the West. Please dont tell me that you believe the BS that Saddam didnt know what was going on.

Felicia believe me when I say that there is connection.. and maybe not enough proof to bring Saddam to justice over 9/11.

And yes there is a haven of Terrorism in Saudia Arabia. as well as Egypt and Syria.

Remember those findings were for the pursuit of War Crimes against Saddam. If this were a civil case in the US (Just think of the OJ trial).. Saddam would have been found guilty of conspiracy and covorting with known Terrorist.. and aiding and abedding. Civil Case.. Not Criminal.

[The American Nightmare]

Felicia believe me when I say that there is connection.. and maybe not enough proof to bring Saddam to justice over 9/11.
:roll:

No, there is no connection. Please stop spreading this lie. Thanks.

[chefmike]

Felicia believe me when I say that there is connection.. and maybe not enough proof to bring Saddam to justice over 9/11.
:roll:

No, there is no connection. Please stop spreading this lie. Thanks.

Yes, believe him...he knows...

[InHouston]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated'.
FK

The survey’s opinion? That’s like saying, “Oh yeah, Hitler would have surrendered without the Allied Forces invading Europe.” Whatever! Here goes Felicia again drawing on irrelevant hindsight armchair quarterback sources for her information. How would the Japanese have surrendered without the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when they refused to surrender after the first attack on Hiroshima? They simply and utterly, and formally, refused after the FIRST ATTACK, so to make the case that they would have surrendered without either of the nuclear attacks is a ridiculous and subjective and opportunistic point on your point to yet again, rewrite history for your political propaganda against the United States. After the first nuclear attack, they absolutely did not surrender, regardless of what the Strategic Bombing Survey said regarding both attacks, or the lack thereof. Is this just too simple for you, or do you need it spelled out for you?

The opinion of a survey by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey is irrelevant and immaterial, because you can say and state your opinion as you like on the past. Tis nothing more than your subjetive anti-war bias. You’re the kind of person who when a burglar enters your home, you’d climb under the bed and hope the intruder moves on to your neighbor. Then you would have said something stupid like, “The intruder would not have entered my home had he known I have a gun.” And you probably don’t own a gun.

Surrender, by default, was not in the Japanese creed, and they would not have surrendered (and did not surrender) without the attacks on Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki. The bomb on Hiroshima was dropped after Japan's absolute refusal to surrender ... period, and they still refused to surrender after Hiroshima. After Hiroshima, President Truman asked the Japanese High Command to surrender. They still refused to stand down and agree to the surrender. Three days later, the second bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. In the first public speech by Emporer Hirohito, he told the nation it was going to surrender. Just prior to that, word got out he was going to surrender and japanese soldiers were scouring the imperial palace looking for him to overthrow him to avoid the dishonor of surrender. His formal surrender was recorded on a phonograph, and they tried to find it the night before it was aired to destroy it. Didn't happen. So they would have surrendered huh? Most of Japan refused to surrender, and Hirohito had the wisdom to surrender to spare his people from certain annihilation.

In response to the second blast - and the implied threat of more to come - Emperor Hirohito, only then FINALLY, raised Japan's white flag in unconditional surrender, announcing in a radio broadcast of the recorded surrender: "The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization." He would not have made such a statement, or formal surrender, without seeing firsthand the destruction that ensued on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The survey was fundamentally wrong, and what does it matter anyway? What’s done is done.

We lost numerous American soldiers liberating Europe from the tyranny of Adolf Hitler. So the choice was very simple. Invade Japan and face a ferocious enemy who will fight to the death without surrender, costing perhaps millions of more American lives, or drop nuclear weapons on key civilian targets to persuade them to surrender from the start, thus sparing the loss of more American lives and Japanese lives. They attacked us; we didn’t attack them, and they drew us into the war with Hitler. Truman chose the latter, and it worked, and subsequently Hirohito chose wisely to surrender. Hirohito actually went against the will of the Japanese people and his military who saw nothing but dishonor in surrendering to the Americans or any enemy for that matter. Hirohito realized the wisdom that it is futile to fight a battle you cannot win, and spared Japan from being obliterated.

Felicia, why don’t you stick to a subject matter you know something of, like being a tranny and flipping pizzas or whatever you do for a living. You always flaunt yourself as a political and historical expert on matters, yet you incessantly rely on cut and paste arguments from disreputable websites and biased articles that accomplish nothing more than to attempt to glean your subjective and delusional perspective on events and issues that are … fundamentally flawed in their most basic context.

And now Felicia will whine about being attacked personally again and me not relying on facts. Those are the facts. Take your liberal anti-American loony lefty bullshit, sit on your crusty commode, and disembogue it to your local municipal waste treatment facility where it belongs. In case you didn’t understand that, spare the world your liberal shit and send it to the sewers. Perhaps some lowly microbial community could find good use for it; then again, perhaps not.

[samstl99]

Felicia believe me when I say that there is connection.. and maybe not enough proof to bring Saddam to justice over 9/11.
:roll:

No, there is no connection. Please stop spreading this lie. Thanks.

Really??.. so you are saying that the upstanding Saddam had no idea that these terrorists were operating in his country. In a country where Saddam knows if some everyday person says something bad about Saddam.

So you are right Lets believe that Saddam knew NOTHING about this. He had no control of what was going on in his country.

And of course he didnt have any biological weapons,.... Correct??

IF you are going to quote me, quote the whole thing. I said he did not have any direct connection to 9/11 bombings but he did have a connection to Al Quaeda.. by the mere fact that he let them operate inside his country.

The problem here is that you think that you are 100% correct and you are not willing to see beyond all the propoganda that is reported. You WANT to believe that the US is completely in the wrong.. so you will find info to support it.. and not listen to information to the contrary.

[samstl99]

Felicia.. Hind sight is 20/20 isnt it.

Here is a bit more points for you to let sink in.

WAS THE ATOMIC BOMBING OF JAPAN IN 1945 JUSTIFIABLE?

It is becoming commonplace on Remembrance or Veterans' Day, 11th of November, for peace activists (and others with political or ideological agenda) to write to newspapers demanding that Americans, British and Australians also remember the civilian victims of alleged British and American "atrocities" in WW II. In the case of the British, reference is usually made to the bombing of German cities, and in particular, Dresden. Adolf Hitler's sustained terror bombing campaign against the civilian populations of London and other British cities appears to be conveniently ignored. In the case of Americans, reference is usually made to the atomic bombing of Japan in August 1945, and it is sometimes suggested that Japan was selected as a target for the atomic bomb only because the Japanese are Asian. In other words, it is suggested that Western racism was involved.

As the Pacific War Historical Society is concerned primarily with events of the Pacific War 1941-45, comments on this issue will be restricted to some of the considerations that actually exercised the minds of those who decided that the atomic bomb should be used against Japan.



On 6 August 1945, an atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima, and the characteristic mushroom-shaped cloud can be seen in this photograph rising over the devastated Japanese city. At this time, Hiroshima was the headquarters of Japan's 2nd General Army.

Do young people need to be told why America used the atomic bomb on Japan?

Is it necessary to acquaint young people in Western countries with the true reasons behind the atomic bombing of Japan? I believe it is for at least two reasons. The atomic bombing of Japan in 1945 appears to be increasingly discussed in many schools as part of that vague subject called either "Social Studies"or "Study of Society and Environment". The real reasons for using the atomic bomb against Japan often appear to be ignored and this can lead to an unfair judgment being passed against the United States.

The second reason is the continuing refusal of successive governments in Japan to disclose to Japanese children the full extent of Japan's war guilt and the appalling atrocities committed by the Japanese military in China and during the Pacific War 1941-45. Allied with this denial, is an increasing push in Japan (a) to claim that Japanese troops invaded China as liberators of the Chinese from Western colonialism and (b) to blame the United States for "forcing" Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor as a desperate response to American embargoes on raw materials needed by Japan. Those who push this line conveniently ignore the fact that between five and ten million Chinese were slaughtered by invading Japanese troops between 1937 and 1945. They also ignore the fact that the United States imposed the embargoes on war-related raw materials in a vain attempt to halt brutal Japanese aggression in China and elsewhere in Asia. This bizarre revisionism appears to be increasingly reflected in letters to newspapers outside Japan.

It is refreshing to see that there are still people with sufficient knowledge of WW II history to challenge this revisionism in the letters columns of newspapers. The Pacific War Web-site also addresses these issues under the index heading "Imperial Japan's Path to World War II".

What President Truman said about America using the atomic bomb on Japan

In examining this topic, it is important to have regard to the considerations that led to President Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan. In a radio broadcast after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, President Truman said:

"I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb...having found the bomb, we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."

I have added the emphasis to sections of the President's speech because I feel that they are very important in making out the arguments for using the atomic bomb.

The ferocity of Japan's military aggression and the appalling atrocities

Although the full extent of the appalling atrocities committed by the Japanese military was yet to be revealed, the President would have been aware of the savage manner in which the Japanese had waged war in the course of their military aggression. He would have been aware of the brutality, racism and fanaticism routinely displayed by the Japanese military; the cruelty towards, and frequent murder of prisoners of war and non-combatants; the raping and looting; the mass slaughter of Chinese civilians; and the willingness to fight to the last man and never surrender.

We saw evidence of that fanaticism, racism and psychopathic brutality in the murder of American pilots captured at Midway, the Bataan Death March and the Sandakan Death March, the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians during the "Rape of Nanking" in 1937, the mass slaughter of hospital medical staff following the fall of Hong Kong, the mass slaughter of American wounded at a field hospital at Attu in the Aleutians, the mass slaughter of Australian nurses on Bangka Island, the mass slaughter of Australian prisoners of war on New Britain, Ambon and Timor, and the murder of Australian missionary sisters when the Japanese landed at Buna in New Guinea. The list of appalling atrocities goes on and on.

I feel that many of those who criticise the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have little understanding of the type of war that the Americans and Australians were fighting against the Japanese. Allied troops discovered very early in the Pacific War that the Japanese invariably fought to the last man, and even Japanese wounded were often supplied with two hand grenades. One was to kill any enemy soldier, including enemy medical staff, who approached them, and the other was to kill themselves rather than endure the shame of being captured alive.

These are the brutal and fanatical troops that Americans would have faced in an amphibious assault on the Japanese home islands in 1945!

Iwo Jima and Okinawa demonstrate the likely heavy cost in American lives of invading Japan

The American experience in capturing the Japanese islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa also played an important part in the decision to use the atomic bomb, if necessary, rather than undertake the fearsome cost of an amphibious invasion of the four Japanese home islands.

After six weeks of fierce fighting, and fanatical resistance by the Japanese over every foot of ground, the island of Iwo Jima fell to the Americans. Its capture cost the US Marines 6,000 dead and more than three times that number wounded. This was the highest toll from one action in the history of the Corps. The US Navy lost 363 lives to Kamikaze and conventional aircraft strikes. Only 216 Japanese were captured alive out of the garrison of 20,000.

The American flag was raised over the Japanese island of Okinawa in the Ryukyu chain on June 22, 1945, after eighty-two days of fierce fighting during which the Japanese fanatically defended every foot of ground. The presence of a large civilian population on Okinawa, and the blending of Japanese troops with the Japanese civilian population, increased significantly the difficulties facing American troops. The fanatical defence of Okinawa cost the United States almost 40,000 battle casualties on land. That figure included 7,374 American dead. Approximately 110,000 Japanese troops died in the defence of Okinawa.

Conventional Bombing of Japan fails to persuade Japan to surrender

To undermine Japan's capacity to continue the war, it was necessary for America to strike at Japan's industrial base. In doing so, the Americans faced a problem. Unlike the situation in many Western countries, most of Japan's major cities did not have clearly defined industrial districts in 1945. Instead, Japanese industrial facilities were mostly dispersed in residential areas. As precision bombing did not exist in 1945, it was impossible for high altitude American B-29s to destroy factories that serviced Japan's war machine without also hitting residential neighbourhoods that adjoined these factories.

As the cost in American lives soared, and Japan showed no inclination to surrender, the Americans finally decided in early 1945 to strike at Japan's war industries even if it inevitably cost civilian lives. For ten days in March 1945, huge formations of B-29 bombers carried out saturation raids on five of Japan's largest industrial cities, including Tokyo. The raids were then suspended. Instead of inclining Japan to surrender, the Japanese government was able to use the air raids to whip up hatred of Americans and stiffen the will of the Japanese people to fight to the death as a nation. This was not as difficult in Japan as it would have been in Western countries. It has to be remembered that the Japanese people were products of a militaristic culture dating back hundreds of years. They felt intense pride in the power of their military, and Japan's military conquests in Asia and the Pacific. Japanese culture permitted Admiral Yamamoto to be viewed as a national hero after he engineered the treacherous sneak attack on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese government plans a fanatical defence of Japan's home islands to the last man, woman and child

In April 1945, the Japanese Suzuki government had prepared a war policy called Ketsugo which was a refinement of the Shosango victory plan for the defence of the home islands to the last man. These plans would prepare the Japanese people psychologically to die as a nation in defence of their homeland. Even children, including girls, would be trained to use makeshift lethal weapons, and exhorted to sacrifice themselves by killing an American invader. To implement this policy of training children to kill, soldiers attended Japanese schools and trained even small children in the use of weapons such as bamboo spears.

The American government was aware from intelligence intercepts of the chilling implications of these Japanese defensive plans. Intelligence reports indicated that the Japanese would probably be able to muster two million troops and eight thousand aircraft for the defence of the four home islands against a traditional amphibious invasion. The dispersal of these military resources across Japan, and their careful concealment, would provide the Americans with no opportunity to destroy them from the air. The Ketsugo policy placed heavy reliance on suicide attacks on the American troops and their covering warships. For this purpose, several thousand aircraft would be adapted for suicide attacks. Other methods of suicide attack being developed included dynamite-filled "crash boats", guided human torpedoes, guided human rocket bombs (similar to the "Baka" rocket plane used against American ships at Okinawa), and specially trained ground suicide units carrying explosives. In addition, the invading Americans would have to face a civilian population drilled in guerilla tactics.

The Americans had every reason to be deeply disturbed when they learned about Japanese plans to defend the home islands by massive suicide attacks on American amphibious forces. The Kamikaze suicide attacks on Allied ships at Okinawa had alone produced a horrifying toll:

34 Allied warships sunk ;

368 Allied ships damaged (some fit only for scrap);

4,900 Allied sailors killed; and

4,874 Allied sailors wounded.

President Truman's military advisers warn him of the very high cost of an invasion of Japan

Faced with this knowledge of Japan's extraordinary plan to defend its home islands to the death, and the fanatical character of Japanese soldiers, and extrapolating the fanatical defence of Iwo Jima and Okinawa to an amphibious assault on Japan's four home islands, American military leaders were deeply concerned. They advised President Truman that an attempt to invade and subdue the Japanese on their home islands was likely to cost at least 1,000,000 American battle casualties.

The Potsdam Declaration gives Japan a last opportunity to surrender

On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration. Its purpose was to hasten Japan's surrender without the need for a difficult and very costly amphibious assault. It warned Japan that it faced "prompt and utter destruction" unless the Japanese swiftly agreed to an unconditional surrender. On July 28, Prime Minister Suzuki announced that Japan intended to "ignore" the Potsdam Declaration.

We have learned that underlying Suzuki's rejection of the Potsdam Declaration was Emperor Hirohito's stubborn resolve to continue the war until he received a guarantee from the Allies that his status as emperor would be preserved and that he would not be tried as a war criminal. There is no evidence that Hirohito felt any genuine concern for the suffering of Japanese civilians as the war encroached on their lives. See Professor Herbert Bix: "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" (2000), published by Harper Collins, and especially, the chapter "Delayed Surrender".

When the Japanese refuse to surrender, President Truman elects to use the atomic bomb

By July 1945, Japan's military and industrial resources had either been destroyed or dispersed widely and largely concealed from air attack. The Americans were finding it very difficult to locate sizeable military or industrial targets for their B-29 bombers to attack with conventional bombs.

When informed that Japan intended to ignore the Potsdam Declaration, President Truman was faced with a dilemma. There was little scope for further conventional bombing. He was left with the choice of ordering an invasion of Japan's home islands or using the atomic bomb. Rather than risk the predicted 1,000,000 American battle casualties in an amphibious assault on Japan, President Truman elected to use the atomic bomb.

The first target was Hiroshima, a city on Japan's Inland Sea. At this time it was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army. On 4 August 1945, American aircraft dropped leaflets on Hiroshima warning the citizens to expect terrible destruction to be visited upon their city because Japan had refused to surrender. Although many civilians had already been evacuated to the country, this warning was largely ignored. On August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on this city. At Hiroshima, 60,000 Japanese died and a similar number were injured.

The emotive impact of the use of an atomic bomb on a Japanese city, and its usefulness as a stick with which to beat the United States, has caused many people to ignore the fact that more people died in the conventional bomb attack on Tokyo on the night of 8/9 March 1945. At Tokyo, on this one night, the bombs and resulting firestorm killed 80,000 people and injured 44,000.

Three days later, when the first atomic bomb had still evoked no response from Japan, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, a port with naval installations. The primary target on this day had been the city of Kokura where a huge army arsenal was located. Thick clouds over Kokura forced diversion of the B-29 with the second bomb to Nagasaki. At Nagasaki, 36,000 were killed and about 60,000 wounded.

Although these casualties from the two atomic bombs are disturbing, they almost certainly represent a very tiny fraction of the Japanese who would have died if the whole population of Japan, civilian as well as military, adults and children, had been mobilised by the Suzuki government to die as a nation in defence of Japan.

The atomic bombs were dropped on two cities of military significance (a) because the Emperor of Japan and his government refused to surrender and were preparing the Japanese people for a fight to the death as a nation, (b) because there were no readily discernable large military or industrial targets available for conventional air attack, and (c) because the Allies faced the prospect of incurring horrendous battle casualties from a conventional amphibious invasion of Japan.

Professor Bix states that the dropping of the atomic bombs, and the simultaneous entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan, were described as "gifts from the gods" by Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai (page 509). By mid-1945, Hirohito and his chief political adviser Koichi Kido were becoming increasingly concerned at growing alienation of public support for continuation of the war. District governors and police chiefs were reporting that the Japanese people were war-weary and despondent, and that popular hostility to the emperor and his government was increasing rapidly. Faced with these serious domestic pressures, Hirohito and his councillors welcomed the dropping of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war as a convenient excuse to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and, at the same time, to provide the emperor with the credit for ending the war (page 523).

The historical matters detailed above are not intended to put an end to argument about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, but to put on record some of the more important considerations that persuaded President Truman to use the atomic bombs.

[Felicia Katt]

Sam, the 9-11 commission wasn't like a criminal grand jury. They were charged merely with investigation and their findings were unequivocal. No "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam may not have been ignorant that there were terrorist groups in Northern Iraq, but the area in which they operated was under Kurdish control, not his.

Showing a mere connection isn't enough. I'm sure if you play the Middle East version of the Kevin Bacon game, you can connect anyone. But in terms of an actual loperational link between Saddam and Al Queda and 9 11? None was found because none existed.

FK

[The American Nightmare]

Sam, perhaps you should clarify: "bring Saddam to justice over 9/11." That, to me, sounds like you're purporting a connection between the two.


The problem here is that you think that you are 100% correct and you are not willing to see beyond all the propoganda that is reported. You WANT to believe that the US is completely in the wrong.. so you will find info to support it.. and not listen to information to the contrary.
Please don't criticize arguments I have never made. Thanks.

[samstl99]

On the actual airstrike.

All I was asking was dont believe everything you read.. correct.

Well lets look at the new information.

AL Zawahiri's wife is from the village that was hit. He was scheduled to be meeting officers of Al Quaeda and changed his plans at the last minute and instead sent other for the meeting. The area is known as being sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Quaeda.

you all read the early reports that "There were NO foreigners" in the village... Just because the villagers said so.. or becuase a World freedom news outlet said so... NOW as many as 8 of the 12 dead WERE in fact Foreigners and that bodies were whisked away.

Now I am not saying that this is FACT either... JUST wait to see what the final verdict is. Somewhere in between is the real truth.

Bottom line is that any villagel... or group of people HAVE to know that if they get involved with any faction of Al Quaeda.. they run the risk of attack... etc. Easiest way to prevent any kind of attack in the area.. is tell Al Quaeda.. that they are not welcome in their village. The more that Happens.. to sooner Osama.. and Zawahiri will be captured.

People KNOW the risks.

[The American Nightmare]

And here's the heart of the problem. You continue to allude to connections that might exist. Somebody probably did something bad. Maybe they deserved it.

You're right about one thing: You shouldn't believe everything you read. However, reading information is a whole lot better than pulling it out of your ass.

[samstl99]

Nightmare.. this is what my quote was.

Felicia. While most of what you write is true. That Saddam was not directly linked to 9/11. However please do not tell me that Saddam as a Dictator and complete ruler of his country was ignorant of the the Terrorist camp in N Iraq. He knew they were there... and while he did not contribute he did allow them to function knowing full well that their intentions were to cause terror in the West. Please dont tell me that you believe the BS that Saddam didnt know what was going on.

Felicia believe me when I say that there is connection.. and maybe not enough proof to bring Saddam to justice over 9/11.
__________________________________________________ ___________

THe connection being that he Knew they were there. Even though it was in what was largely Kurdish area... he was still knowledgeable of the camp. Special forces found the camp because of Documentation found in Baghdad. They didnt just stumble across it.

The other comment about criticizing ones post.. was meant more for Felicia.


and Like I said.. dont anyone dare say that there were no Biological weapons in Iraq...

[Legend]

Nightmare.. this is what my quote was.

Felicia. While most of what you write is true. That Saddam was not directly linked to 9/11. However please do not tell me that Saddam as a Dictator and complete ruler of his country was ignorant of the the Terrorist camp in N Iraq. He knew they were there... and while he did not contribute he did allow them to function knowing full well that their intentions were to cause terror in the West. Please dont tell me that you believe the BS that Saddam didnt know what was going on.

Felicia believe me when I say that there is connection.. and maybe not enough proof to bring Saddam to justice over 9/11.
__________________________________________________ ___________

THe connection being that he Knew they were there. Even though it was in what was largely Kurdish area... he was still knowledgeable of the camp. Special forces found the camp because of Documentation found in Baghdad. They didnt just stumble across it.

The other comment about criticizing ones post.. was meant more for Felicia.


and Like I said.. dont anyone dare say that there were no Biological weapons in Iraq...

There were no biological weapons or any weapons of mass destuction.

[The American Nightmare]

The other comment about criticizing ones post.. was meant more for Felicia.
And my point still stands. You continually argue from ignorance.

Read more >> here << (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance#Argument_from_Personal_Inc redulity)


and Like I said.. dont anyone dare say that there were no Biological weapons in Iraq... Oh there were? Where are they now?

[Felicia Katt]

Felicia, why don’t you stick to a subject matter you know something of, like being a tranny and flipping pizzas or whatever you do for a living. You always flaunt yourself as a political and historical expert on matters, yet you incessantly rely on cut and paste arguments from disreputable websites and biased articles that accomplish nothing more than to attempt to glean your subjective and delusional perspective on events and issues that are … fundamentally flawed in their most basic context.

And now Felicia will whine about being attacked personally again and me not relying on facts. Those are the facts. Take your liberal anti-American loony lefty bullshit, sit on your crusty commode, and disembogue it to your local municipal waste treatment facility where it belongs. In case you didn’t understand that, spare the world your liberal shit and send it to the sewers. Perhaps some lowly microbial community could find good use for it; then again, perhaps not.

wow, why would I ever complain about such a courteous respectful post? LOL

My "loony, left wing" sources were Eisenhower's memoirs and The United States Strategic Bombing Survey. Eisenhower, you might remember, was a General in World War 2 and a Republican president. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was established by the Secretary of War on November 3 1944, pursuant to a directive from the late President Roosevelt. It was an official War Department study.

Just for you information, I like pizza, but I don't flip it. I don't flaunt myself as anything other than someone with an opinion, and the facts to back it. Which I reference or detail so you can check them out for yourself.

I have an opinion about you, and more than enough facts to support it, but I'll keep it to myself. I'll give you a hint though, it involves the part of the body from which I "disembogue" a few slices of pepperoni pizza a few hours after I eat them.

FK

[samstl99]

Haha... you silly silly fools... Fell right into the trap.. (Just kidding).

Of course there were WMD in IRAQ... wanna know how this can be true?. Because the US GAVE them to IRAQ to use as a deterrent or as a weapon during the Iran Iraq war.

THe US was looking for proof that they were trying to reproduce these weapons.

SO YESS Virginia IRAQ did have Chemical and Biological weapons. We know because the US gave them to them.

and Remember that it was not the so called NeoCon's that first bombed Iraq because of suspected Weapons of Mass Distruction..

[The American Nightmare]

[words]
I'm pretty sure that the stupidity of this argument is self-evident: We have to evade Iraq because they have weapons... that we gave them!

My question still stands: If they had the weapons when we invaded, where are they now?

[BlackAdder]

Sigh.....You guys will never learn....you cant argue with retards or religious people.


DING I GOT MAIL....YAY!!!!! NOW YOU GO LADY!!!

[samstl99]

Nightmare.. you are missing the point.

THe point is that things get lost in translation.. and everything we read is a series of truths.. and opinion. The Opinion varies depending on where it is coming from.. but these opinions are put to the public like they are fact.

So here everyone is upset that we didnt find WMD... well we DID.. and they did Find the same Cannisters that were supplied to Iraq.. in Caves in Afghanistan... What the real issue is... did they.. or were they trying to reporduce these weapons. That is the lost in translation.

Like I said.. I am no Bush supporter.. he has fucked up just as bad as our last few presidients. Clinton fucked up.. and Bush Sr fucked up.

And the arguement that we invaded Iraq for their Oil is silly. the US never did.. and never will get oil from Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was to stabilize the region.. so our Oil prices would go down from the OPEC nations.... Hell the majority of our oil is coming from South America nowadays... (and we still have not gotten involved in Venezuela's Civil war... amazing huh).

Just dont believe all the liberal stuff.. and dont believe the all the Conservative stuff.

[scipio]

You wouldn't know proof it if stuck it up your ass.

That's true. I'd probably mistake it for something else if it stuck up my ass.

Usually truth approaches from the front, you know, and says "hello, I am truth. Believe me."

No suppository needed.

But maybe that's how republicans like their truth?

[yourdaddy]

Some of Saddam's General officers have stated, along with expatriots, that the WMD's were taken across the border into Syria, by truck convoys.

[samstl99]

Hmmm funny how some of you posters havent come back to say that some of your information was incorrect. Seems the Strike was justified. (STILL innocent people being killed is always a bad thing. and no one wants to see this happen).

Simple solution. Tell Al Quaeda they are not welcome any more.

[chefmike]

Hmmm funny how some of you posters havent come back to say that some of your information was incorrect. Seems the Strike was justified. (STILL innocent people being killed is always a bad thing. and no one wants to see this happen).

Simple solution. Tell Al Quaeda they are not welcome any more.

So what if four Al Quaeda were killed, the neocon invasion of iraq has created an endless supply. It doesn't justify this wag the dog (or chimp, as it were) attack that killed innocent civilians. Thanks to shrubya and his neocon masters, Al Quaeda are like maggots...kill ten, and sooner or later twenty more will come squirming along. Speaking of maggots, it looks as though a few of the repug type will be squirming in jail soon...

BTW, do we have any proof that terrorists were killed other than the word of corrupt pakistani officials?

[chefmike]

Some of Saddam's General officers have stated, along with expatriots, that the WMD's were taken across the border into Syria, by truck convoys.

Sure, did they tell this to oreilly, or rush the junkie? Lay off that hillbilly heroin, yourdaddygump, I doubt that you can afford the legal help your junkie hero is getting...

[samstl99]

Hmmm funny how some of you posters havent come back to say that some of your information was incorrect. Seems the Strike was justified. (STILL innocent people being killed is always a bad thing. and no one wants to see this happen).

Simple solution. Tell Al Quaeda they are not welcome any more.

So what if four Al Quaeda were killed, the neocon invasion of iraq has created an endless supply. It doesn't justify this wag the dog (or chimp, as it were) attack that killed innocent civilians. Thanks to shrubya and his neocon masters, Al Quaeda are like maggots...kill ten, and sooner or later twenty more will come squirming along. Speaking of maggots, it looks as though a few of the repug type will be squirming in jail soon...

BTW, do we have any proof that terrorists were killed other than the word of corrupt pakistani officials?

Again it is all about who you believe. Do you Believe Al -Jezerra? Do you believe the AP?. Do you believe the Pakistanis that are pissed that we bombed the village?.. do you believe our government? Somewhere in the midst of all the positioning and the " I am always right" tone, is the truth.

Read what is common across all the accounts. Drop the spin that each puts on the story. THe baseline is that YES this is a Known village that harbors and aids Al Quaeda (multiple accounts by several sources show that terrorists have frequented the village). Zawahiri's wife if from this Village. (so it is reasonable that he would return at some point and time). 4-8 (Depending on whose reports you believe) of the forgeigners were KNOWN terrortists. The solution is simple for the Lords that run these villages.... do NOT aid and abed Terrorists.. and you wont have to worry about an attack.... but once you take in terrorists.. you are now a target.

I know it sucks.. and the loss of children is awful.

And I do agree that killing just a few terrorists is NOT worth the loss of innocent lives.. But they thought that Zawahiri was in that group... and arrived in the cover of night with the rest of them. He decided at the last minute to not go. I believe that had they known he was Not there.. the strike would never had been ordered. But if you have the chance to cut the heart out of a rabid dog... you do it. And with Zawahiri gone.. there is no leader... Sure they may resurface.. but you hurt their ability to create terror if you take the brains and money out of the mix.

I dont think we will ever be rid of Terrorists as long as there are radical differences in Religion. The Muslims will always hate the Jews. the Shiites will always hate the Sunni's. The kurds will be hated by the just about all of the Muslim community (except the Turks).

[scipio]

Hmmm funny how some of you posters havent come back to say that some of your information was incorrect. Seems the Strike was justified. (STILL innocent people being killed is always a bad thing. and no one wants to see this happen).

Simple solution. Tell Al Quaeda they are not welcome any more.

No... Just bored with the topic, and the lies. I don't believe it. Who were these "Al Qaeda" baddies? If they were really important no doubt we'd see their names and faces splashed across the news (the government would make sure of that).

You have drunk deeply of the Bush administration Kool-Aid, my friend.

[The American Nightmare]

Let's not forget that George W Bush himself, the man who was using the WMD sales pitch in the first place, has recently admitted that he was wrong about the subject.

Sam, if what you say is true, why would Bush go out of his way to make himself look like an ass? Are you privy to information to which he is not?

[scipio]

Can we have a section just for the repugs so they can go and have their redneck circle-jerk in there.

I know... the section can be called "Hypocrites".

[Felicia Katt]

Some of Saddam's General officers have stated, along with expatriots, that the WMD's were taken across the border into Syria, by truck convoys.

U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/

Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere. Last week, a congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said suggestions that weapons or components were sent from Iraq were based on speculation stemming from uncorroborated information.

And to think I get shit for my sources?? LOL

No weapons. No BS. No basis in fact for the case for war.

FK

[samstl99]

Nightmare...

You say it was George W that used the WMD Sales pitch in the first place?? Well just as you corrected my on my facts ... I am correcting you on your incorrect facts.
__________________________________________

From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

So why did no one accuse Clinton for going after Iraq because of oil.. or his information being faulty. Many women and children were killed in hos attacks.. So where is the difference? You say people are being hypocrits... Yet some of you are hypocrits because you bash a person.. or a political party.... Yet when someone you support does it... it is ok. and justified.

[samstl99]

Felicia.. I wouldnt say there was NO Case for War. The US just gave the wrong reason. THe US knew that WMD would be a slam dunk.

The Crimes against humanity .... Good Reason (See Mogadishu)
The use of Biological weapons on his own Citizens.
Confirmed evidence that he financed and plotted to have George Bush Sr assasinated.

Failure to allow the UN into Iraq for inspections.
Failure to meet UN resolutions.


But none of these were HOT enough topics for approval from COngress.

[samstl99]

Some of Saddam's General officers have stated, along with expatriots, that the WMD's were taken across the border into Syria, by truck convoys.

U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/

Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never “a piece,” said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere. Last week, a congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said suggestions that weapons or components were sent from Iraq were based on speculation stemming from uncorroborated information.

And to think I get shit for my sources?? LOL

No weapons. No BS. No basis in fact for the case for war.

FK

Felicia.. again.. this is a series of mis truths. Believe what you want, but just because nothing wasnt found.. doesnt mean it wasnt there. Of course the US needed to prove that there was WMD being REPRODUCED. We have already concluded that IRAQ DID have biological weapons. What they were looking for was Iraq reproducing them.. adn others.. and also weaponizing them.

Here is a "smoking Gun" for you. Granted this doesnt prove that Iraq had WMD... but it does lay a cloud over the everything.... AND FYI.. your article was written 1/05..

THis article was 6/05

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8080407/

Remember.. it is easy to have dual purpose facilities... just as everyone is afraid of IRAN and their nuclear production.

[The American Nightmare]

Clinton
For one who is so critical of the news sources of others, you sure do stay out of touch with current events. Don't you realize that Clinton isn't the president any more?

My argument has nothing to do with anybody but Bush. Are you going to continually ignore me instead of admitting that you're wrong? There's nothing wrong with admitting you were incorrect. There is something wrong with being afraid to do so. It's very cowardly.

Allow me to repeat myself.

--------------------------

Let's not forget that George W Bush himself, the man who was using the WMD sales pitch in the first place, has recently admitted that he was wrong about the subject.

Sam, if what you say is true, why would Bush go out of his way to make himself look like an ass? Are you privy to information to which he is not?

[Felicia Katt]

Sam, this is from your article

In the report to the U.N. Security Council, acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos said he’s reached no conclusions about who removed the items or where they went. He said it could have been moved elsewhere in Iraq, sold as scrap, melted down or purchased.
He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. “However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair.”
The Iraq Survey report, a 1500 page CIA document which was the official finding detailing all the efforts to locate WMD, determined as of March 2003 -- the month of the invasion -- Saddam did not have any WMD stockpiles and had not started any program to produce them and that that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

Smoking gun? hardly. Smoke and mirrors? definitely.

FK

[samstl99]

Nightmare. I was not saying the Bush fucked up.. He did. I was responding what you wrote.

"Let's not forget that George W Bush himself, the man who was using the WMD sales pitch in the first place"

All I was saying was that Clinton was the FIRST person to use WMD as a sales pitch to go after Saddam. SO if you are critical of Bush..were you critical of Clinton? and did he Fuck up too? yes Bush admitted that he was wrong.. because they were never able to prove it. I agree with that. But the CIA is still sending in lead Chem/Bio teams with Special Forces when they are conducting raids. Just because he admitted that they were unable to prove that Iraq had been reproducing and stockpiling WMD.. doesnt mean that the US Government believes that there are some serious unanswered questions. Things may not add up to prove he DID.. but things dont add up to say he definately DIDNT.

THe onus was on the US to prove he DID.. and they failed in that. But you have to admit that there are some things that are awfully fishy.

I am not saying that Bush was right. I have stated that they were wrong. But not evetything is black and white. I am not saying that I am right.. or wrong... just trying to get you to see that at the time the decision was made... maybe.. just maybe.. there was resonable cause.

Felicia you pointed out a piece of that article. Read what was actually said. Things can be used for dual purposes. You just decide to believe that it wasnt being used for something bad... others believe that it was. Just dont be so close minded.

Here are questions for you.

Why does Saddam need 3 Mobile Chemical Labs??

What is the worth of numerous Factories that were stripped of Certain pieces of equipment... effectively making them useless?

Do you really believe that he wouldnt use Chemical/Biological weapons??



Felicia.. I guess you believe that Iran is not a problem either... RIGHT?

[samstl99]

Felicia.

From YOUR articles.

You have to read the WHOLE article. Again.. there is reasonable Cause... it just depends on what you want to believe.


The report found that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future. (Full story)

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report said.

After Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power.

[BlackAdder]

I think its pretty clear cut that the world would have been safer without Bush 2 in power...

[samstl99]

Black Adder.

I am not going to say the world would have been a SAFER place. I think things were going to happen with or without Bush in place. I dont think we would have invaded Iraq... so I think that area would have been safer for the US Troops.

Remember that documentation that was founds showed that 9/11 was in the planning for 3 years... so that means that the planning of it came during a diffrent presidency.

Is Bush and Idiot.. yeah. But remember he is not the sharpest tool in the shed.. and the information given to him was the same given to Blair.. and all the other Allies we had. And those reports were given to them by their own Itelligence agencies.

[chefmike]

What's Up With Osama Bin Laden?

Robert Scheer www.huffingtonpost.com

What's up with Osama bin Laden?

Remember when capturing him "dead or alive" and eliminating his Afghanistan-based al Qaeda, as Bush promised, was what the War on Terror was all about?

Instead the president got distracted with his idiotic invasion of Iraq where al Qaeda had been effectively banned by the secular dictator the U.S. deposed.

Now we are left holding the bag in two desperate countries with bleak futures where perpetrators of 9/11 are reportedly thriving and guerilla warfare and terror bombings have continued to increase.

"Al Qaeda is quickly changing and we are not," warned Timothy J. Roemer, a member of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission appointed by President Bush, last month. "Al Qaeda is highly dynamic and we are not. Al Qaeda is highly imaginative and we are not."

Yet, in his speeches, Bush clings to the notion that the battle against terrorism is going well because, according to his spin, we have been able to eliminate it in Afghanistan and are now destroying the last vestiges of this scourge in Iraq. On his visit to Kabul last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elaborated on this absurdity by declaring bloody, backward Afghanistan as a "model" of progress in the War on Terror - even as he admitted that "Iraq is several years behind."

Rumsfeld's claim of progress was treated as ridiculous by Afghan security officials interviewed in a BBC survey of opinion following the defense secretary's visit. "We are very worried now," one senior police official told the BBC. "The Taliban and Al Qaeda are getting more threatening."

Last Sunday, U.S. sources claimed to have targeted Osama's second-in-command with the bombing of a village on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan. But, as is so often the case when applying air power to non-military targets, the corpses left in the debris of a devastated village did not include the intended target. In the aftermath, American flags were once again burning in the region as anti-American protests swept Pakistan.

Meanwhile, next door in Afghanistan, a new rash of suicide bombings--25 in four months, according to the Los Angeles Times--is providing evidence that al Qaeda's old partners in crime, the Taliban, are back with a vengeance. Over the weekend, 20 civilians were killed by a suicide bomber, while a Canadian diplomat was killed in another attack. This month is on pace to be the bloodiest the country has seen since the U.S. invasion.

NATO members with troops operating out of Kabul are balking at sending more, while at least one, Holland, is considering pulling out altogether of a much-hyped occupation which seems to be accomplishing little.

"What happened to the new roads and irrigation canals, the jobs we were told about?" village elders plaintively inquired of a BBC correspondent. Indeed, five years of "nation-building" has left Afghanistan a festering wound, with primitive warlords still dominant, an isolated capital with no control of the country side, no national infrastructure, and a once-again booming opium trade the country's only economic bright spot.

"Of course we're growing poppy this year," one district chief told the BBC. "The government, the foreigners--they promised to help if we stopped. But where is it?"

This occupation is only the latest in centuries of cynical or, at best, ineffective meddling in Afghanistan. From the Brits to the Soviets to the Republicans, everybody has seen the place as useful to achieve ends which have nothing to do with making it a better place to live. As we once again draw down our annual economic commitment to Afghanistan's rebuilding from $1 billion to $600 million annually, it is clear the Bush team is hoping the country will once again recede from the global stage into unseen anarchy.

After our dramatic initial stab into Afghanistan after 9/11, the Bush administration has shown no willingness to do the heavy lifting that would be required to make the country once again the functioning nation it was before Cold War games tore it apart. Rather, as with the rest of its policies, a token effort has merely been a cover for conning the American public into believing Bush is effectively pursuing the War on Terror.

Since most Americans could not find the country on a map, this deeply cynical approach will continue to work - at least until the next time a gang of marauders trained in the primitive bad lands of Afghanistan and Pakistan and funded by our "allies" in Saudi Arabia launch another devastating attack on U.S. soil.


Cross-posted at Truthdig.com

[The American Nightmare]

All I was saying was that Clinton was the FIRST person to use WMD as a sales pitch to go after Saddam.
And I don't give a shit. It's completely irrelevant.


SO if you are critical of Bush..were you critical of Clinton?
No I wasn't. I was in highschool at the time and I didn't watch the news.

Just to make sure I've got your argument correct: Iraq did have WMDs when we invaded, but somewhere along the line, they snuck them over into Afghanistan (which I think we were supposed to be taking care of, but I lose track of these things).

If this is not correct, please clarify.

And in any case, please back up what you say. If you don't have anything to prove your case, I'm going to assume you are making stuff up.

[samstl99]

All I was saying was that Clinton was the FIRST person to use WMD as a sales pitch to go after Saddam.
And I don't give a shit. It's completely irrelevant.

It isnt irrelevant.. because it was CLINTON that FIRST used the Sales Pitch.


SO if you are critical of Bush..were you critical of Clinton?
No I wasn't. I was in highschool at the time and I didn't watch the news.

Well you obviously are a foolish youth..and really are just beginning to understand the world. I will chalk your shortsidedness up to your youth.

Just to make sure I've got your argument correct: Iraq did have WMDs when we invaded, but somewhere along the line, they snuck them over into Afghanistan (which I think we were supposed to be taking care of, but I lose track of these things).

UMM.. Incorrect. as I have stated.. I have a family member that is in the CIA. And they DID find cannisters of Bio weapons... but they are the cannisters that we provided to Iraq. So how did they get into Afghanistan? and this was BEFORE we invaded IRAQ... I am not saying they snuck their supposed arsenal of WMD anywhere.. hell I am not even saying that they did reproduce them. What I am saying is there is reasonable cause of suspicion that they Wanted to reproduce.. and that there were factories that had dual capabilities.

Using yours and Felicia's reasoning.. One can summize that you think everything is just Fine in Iran?. And that we should not be concerned there either....



If this is not correct, please clarify.

And in any case, please back up what you say. If you don't have anything to prove your case, I'm going to assume you are making stuff up.

[The American Nightmare]

irrelevant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrelevant)
Unrelated to the matter being considered.

I was pointing out the veracity of a statement George Bush made. Whether or not Clinton said the same thing first has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of Bush's statement. It's irrelevant.

I can't explain that any more clearly.


I have a family member that is in the CIA
See also: hearsay. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hearsay)

And for the record, I don't care about Iran. You have a bad habit of bringing up subjects that are completely off-topic.

[chefmike]

Felicia.. I guess you believe that Iran is not a problem either... RIGHT?

Is Iran a problem? Is North Korea a problem? Yes, they were/and are. But what the fuck are we gonna do about em if the shit hits the fan now? We don't have enough troops available for the fiasco in Iraq. The back-door draft we have placed on the National Guard won't even cover the neocon fiasco in Iraq. Here's a little news flash that demonstrates how bad things are....

Marines Leave Behind Naval Academy Watch
Combat Troop Shortage Ends Tradition

By Elizabeth Williamson and Ray Rivera
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 14, 2006; Page B04

In a ceremony that began with a prayer and ended with tears, the U.S. Naval Academy sent its Marine sentries off to war yesterday, ending a 155-year tradition at the school because of the demand for combat troops.

"Pray for them, for many of them are going into harm's way," a chaplain said in an invocation as the four dozen Marines, scarcely older than the midshipmen they guard, stood in quiet formation behind him.



Marine sentries at the Naval Academy cap their service with a prayer and ceremony. Sentries have been used there since 1851.

Since before the Civil War, Marine sentries have provided security for dignitaries' visits and special events on the Annapolis campus. They also performed largely ceremonial duties, including standing guard outside John Paul Jones's crypt and the academy's museum.

The sentries were most visible, however, at the academy's gates, where "they maintained day-to-day vigilance . . . but they've done much more, in their ability to look tough but remain pleasant," said Vice Adm. Rodney P. Rempt, the Naval Academy superintendent.

Turning to the Marines lined up behind him in the academy's Bancroft Hall in Annapolis, Rempt said: "You've become a part of us. God bless, fair winds and following seas."

The Marines are being replaced by Navy enlisted personnel.

Dozens of military installations across the nation have turned to civilian security officers in recent years, and the Navy is leaving that option open for the academy. The Army's U.S. Military Academy at West Point and post at Fort Meade brought on private security firms in 2004.

The sentries' departure reflects the strain on U.S. forces stretched thin by deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Obviously, we can use those Marines in more significant roles," said Gary Solis, a West Point professor and former official historian for the Marine Corps who frequently lectures at the Naval Academy. "But it's too bad a tradition like that has to end."

Marines have been providing security for the Naval Academy since 1851, six years after its founding. Back then, they were quartered aboard ships in the Severn River, which borders the 338-acre campus.

Michael I. Christman, a 1985 Naval Academy graduate who serves on the Annapolis City Council, taught his 2 1/2- year-old son to shout "ooh-rah" to the guards when the child passed through the gates to visit the campus. "It was just a way to pay respect to the guys standing duty, because it's not necessarily fun duty," Christman said.

The ceremony yesterday closed with a reading of the formal orders for the company to turn over its weapons and records. The academy band played a few bars of "Auld Lang Syne," then "Anchors Aweigh" and "The Marines' Hymn," as people in the crowd of 100 wiped their eyes. Dismissed for the final time, the young men wandered away.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Quinn]

Is Iran a problem? Is North Korea a problem? Yes, they were/and are. But what the fuck are we gonna do about em if the shit hits the fan now?

Fucking bingo! Unlike Iraq, these two nations actually are serious threats (to everyone, not just the U.S.). However, we no longer have the capability - thanks to Iraq - to engage either of these nations effectively, especially North Korea. Their leaders know this, which is why they are pushing so hard now. Rather than discourage this set of developments, Iraq actually helped to create them.

-Quinn

[Felicia Katt]

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report said.

After Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power.

I read that part, which was Bush's spin on the report. I didn't think it was relevant to THE issue, that entire basis for the war, which was that Saddam was poised to actually use WMD against the US, was completely false. Here is the kind of argument the Administration made to justify immediately invading Iraq:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” –Vice President Cheney

“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” –President Bush

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. - Donald Rumsfeld

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer

No matter how you now try to cook the facts, the proof just wasn't in the pudding. Every belated rationale and back door justification offered now doesn't change that the case made for the war was false. Your questions don't change the conclusions. The "weapon labs" were determined to most likely be for weather balloons, the factorys were most probably looted, not dispersed. Saddam would use such weapons, that is true. He did so 12 years earlier. But he hadn't since, since he couldn't, since he had largely disarmed himself and dismantled his programs in 1991.

Iran is a problem. So is North Korea. Unlike Iraq, they do have nuclear programs and they are openly hostile to the West. But we continue to try to work with them diplomatically. What do I think is the difference? Bush said: "After all, this is the guy (Saddam) who tried to kill my dad."

You also conveniently left out this, from the article in question:
"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

In other words, he had no weapons, and wasn't working to produce any while under sanctions, but hoped to do so if and when sanctions were lifted. There is no doubt that the sanctions were working so this was not a reason for the war. Powell, Rice and even Cheney himself all said so:


...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 February 24, 2001


But 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. July 29, 2001

Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned. September 16, 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html
Before you go to war, things should be black and white. Not grey, and not colored by personal political agendas, as they clearly were here.

FK

[samstl99]

We can go at this forever. I can find articles stating things to support my side.. as you can find yours.

Nightmare. How can it be irrelevant when your statement said NOTHING about veracity. So you need to clarify your statement. I was simply responding to exactly what you said.

and as far as your hersay BS. He was THERE in IRAQ and Afghanistan. I dont care if you Believe me or not. But I have first hand account of shit going on over there. So that is NOT hersay as this is not a Court of LAW. Again you show your youth and use the wrong definition.

And IRAN now is exactly Where we were with Iraq Years ago. SO it is VERY relevant. We have a hostile Middle east Country that wants to go against UN and world Policies. Ignoring the UN and its policies. There is NO proof that they will USE their Nuclear facilities for weapons. They state that it is just for energy purposes. So Why are you not believing them? THe stage that Iran is as is the same stage that Iraq was at. We are Guessing what they are going to do.. and now wait for it to happen.

And if you actually knew foreign policy,..you would know that the reason we are not taking firm action against Iran is because their allies Russia, France..etc.. are pressuring them to stop. If Germany and France would have done the same with Iraq.. then maybe.. just maybe there would not have been a war. They did not want us to find the illegal parts that they were selling to Iraq.. Parts that have those Dual purposes... parts that were banned by UN sanctions.

In the end.. France nad Germany admitted to selling them.. but this was after Saddam was taken down..

[samstl99]

And Nightmare.. you SHOULD care about IRAN.

[chefmike]

We can go at this forever. I can find articles stating things to support my side.. as you can find yours.

Nightmare. How can it be irrelevant when your statement said NOTHING about veracity. So you need to clarify your statement. I was simply responding to exactly what you said.

and as far as your hersay BS. He was THERE in IRAQ and Afghanistan. I dont care if you Believe me or not. But I have first hand account of shit going on over there. So that is NOT hersay as this is not a Court of LAW. Again you show your youth and use the wrong definition.

And IRAN now is exactly Where we were with Iraq Years ago. SO it is VERY relevant. We have a hostile Middle east Country that wants to go against UN and world Policies. Ignoring the UN and its policies. There is NO proof that they will USE their Nuclear facilities for weapons. They state that it is just for energy purposes. So Why are you not believing them? THe stage that Iran is as is the same stage that Iraq was at. We are Guessing what they are going to do.. and now wait for it to happen.

And if you actually knew foreign policy,..you would know that the reason we are not taking firm action against Iran is because their allies Russia, France..etc.. are pressuring them to stop. If Germany and France would have done the same with Iraq.. then maybe.. just maybe there would not have been a war. They did not want us to find the illegal parts that they were selling to Iraq.. Parts that have those Dual purposes... parts that were banned by UN sanctions.

In the end.. France nad Germany admitted to selling them.. but this was after Saddam was taken down..

lmao...firm action against Iran? Or N Korea? Do your CIA lackey contacts tell you we are going to reinstate the draft, or just send the boy scouts?

[The American Nightmare]

We can go at this forever. I can find articles stating things to support my side.. as you can find yours.

Nightmare. How can it be irrelevant when your statement said NOTHING about veracity. So you need to clarify your statement. I was simply responding to exactly what you said.
You are questioning his truthfulness. Your statement, that there were WMDs in Iraq, is contradictory to what Bush has said in recent statements. Bush has every reason in the world to prove that the WMDs where there. If what you say is true, why isn't he touting the fact?

Anybody keeping count of how many times I've asked this?


and as far as your hersay BS. He was THERE in IRAQ and Afghanistan. I dont care if you Believe me or not. But I have first hand account of shit going on over there. So that is NOT hersay as this is not a Court of LAW. Again you show your youth and use the wrong definition.
Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

[Felicia Katt]

Felicia.. I wouldnt say there was NO Case for War. The US just gave the wrong reason. THe US knew that WMD would be a slam dunk.
The Crimes against humanity .... Good Reason (See Mogadishu)
The use of Biological weapons on his own Citizens.
Confirmed evidence that he financed and plotted to have George Bush Sr assasinated.
Failure to allow the UN into Iraq for inspections.
Failure to meet UN resolutions.
But none of these were HOT enough topics for approval from COngress.
Pretext
An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse.
An effort or strategy intended to conceal something.

Fraud & Deceit
Conduct may constitute fraud because of an intentional misrepresentation or concealment.

Under your facts, by using WMD as a pretext for invading Iraq, when their real reasons were otherwise, doesn't it just follow that the Administration was committing a fraud on the American people?

FK

[The American Nightmare]

Using the dictnionary is fun! http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/edoom/biggrinbounce.gif

[samstl99]

Nightmare... do you really understand what is going on? They were looking for proof that he was REPRODUCING and or STOCKPILING Chem or Bio weapons. EVERYONE knows that we gave Iraq those weapons when they were at war with Iran. They were not Lookiing for proof that We gave them to Iraq.. How stupid are you. AGAIN.. they were trying to prove that he was REPRODUCING or STOCKPILING these weapons. Are you kidding me and everyone else that he didnt have them?.. You are nieve. What do you think he used to kill 10s of thousands of his people after they tried to rise up against him?... ummm it was Biological Weapons. The whole Freaking world KNEW he had them. They had to prove that he was REPRODUCING and or STOCKPILING them. God how dense can you be.

Bush, and Tony Blair admitted that their intelligence was wrong that he had the ability to do this because the could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.. meaning they did not find working labs.. etc.

What they did find were 3 Mobile Chem Labs. Remember those? what are those for? Could they prove that they were for WMD manufacturing .. No but there is a High suspicion what they were for. Of course this is circumstancial evidence.

Why were there 109 plants that had illegal parts sold to them by France and Germany.. Plants that admittedly could be used for dual purposes. Do you realize that a soap factory can easily be turned into a Ricin factory with a few modifications.... So when they inspected these plants..there were parts missing from the working plant floor. WHy were some parts missing?.. again circumstancial.. but still suspicious.

Of course Bush had to come out and say that they didnt have any..because they could not prove that he was Reproducing or Stockpiling them.

And you keep asking the question and I keep answering it.. you are just too dense to understand. he doesnt Come out and say this because it cant be proven.. just like in a court.. even if the jury or judge personally feels that someone is guilty.. but there is not enough evidence to verify it.. the Judge has to publicly say that the person is Not guilty.. even though there is suspicion that he was. Remember OJ.

and you are the one that keeps avoiding my questions.. because you dont have answers.


and your hersay BS is just that BS. EVERYTHING on this board is Hersay... everything in the NEWS is hersay.. everything in the papers is Hersay. Substantiate what you read in a paper. Go ahead smart guy. Tell me the difference. There is no difference you just choose to believe what you read.

and Felicia. I said that Bush used the wrong thing to go to war with Iraq... and that the slam dunk was the WMD. Had he used those others that were true.. he may not have gotten approval. So by your post Felicia.. Clinton committed fraud as well. Are you willing to admit that?


I am not here to defend Bush. Hell I didnt vote for the guy. I Just want you all to open your minds and broaden your views and not believe everything you read.

[samstl99]

[quote="chefmikelmao...firm action against Iran? Or N Korea? Do your CIA lackey contacts tell you we are going to reinstate the draft, or just send the boy scouts?[/quote]

Again.. here you go believing what you want to believe.

This is from a Congressional Filing. this is NOT a News report.

9/23/04 Statement by Senator Kyl About the Reinstatement of the Military Draft

A number of Internet sites erroneously claim that President Bush has a secret plan to reinstate the draft. The fact is that the two bills in Congress that would reinstate the draft were introduced by Congressman Charlie Rangel and Senator Ernest Hollings, both Democrats.

President Bush addressed the draft issue directly on September 7, 2004 at the Missouri State Fairgrounds, when he responded to a question from the audience by stating: “The war on terror will continue. It’s going to take awhile. And, no, we don’t need a draft. What we need to do is to make sure our troops are well-paid, and well-housed, and well-equipped. And so, therefore, in making a volunteer army work, it’s best to treat our soldiers the best we possibly can. And we made great progress in doing just that. No, we don’t need the draft. We don’t need a draft at all.”

[yourdaddy]

When you invite the devil to dinner, you're gonna pay hell !!!!. Good intelligence=good results.

[The American Nightmare]

Of course Bush had to come out and say that they didnt have any..because they could not prove that he was Reproducing or Stockpiling them.
That is correct!

Felicia, tell him what he's won!


and your hersay BS is just that BS. EVERYTHING on this board is Hersay... everything in the NEWS is hersay.. everything in the papers is Hersay. Substantiate what you read in a paper. Go ahead smart guy. Tell me the difference. There is no difference you just choose to believe what you read.

No, there's a difference. Your story is second-hand, and unverified. A news report is either first-hand, backed up by evidence, or corroborated with additional testimony.

No respectable journalist is going to write a story based on "some internet guy's brother."

[chefmike]

Felicia.. I guess you believe that Iran is not a problem either... RIGHT?

Is Iran a problem? Is North Korea a problem? Yes, they were/and are. But what the fuck are we gonna do about em if the shit hits the fan now? We don't have enough troops available for the fiasco in Iraq. The back-door draft we have placed on the National Guard won't even cover the neocon fiasco in Iraq. Here's a little news flash that demonstrates how bad things are....

Marines Leave Behind Naval Academy Watch
Combat Troop Shortage Ends Tradition

By Elizabeth Williamson and Ray Rivera
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 14, 2006; Page B04

In a ceremony that began with a prayer and ended with tears, the U.S. Naval Academy sent its Marine sentries off to war yesterday, ending a 155-year tradition at the school because of the demand for combat troops.

"Pray for them, for many of them are going into harm's way," a chaplain said in an invocation as the four dozen Marines, scarcely older than the midshipmen they guard, stood in quiet formation behind him.



Marine sentries at the Naval Academy cap their service with a prayer and ceremony. Sentries have been used there since 1851.

Since before the Civil War, Marine sentries have provided security for dignitaries' visits and special events on the Annapolis campus. They also performed largely ceremonial duties, including standing guard outside John Paul Jones's crypt and the academy's museum.

The sentries were most visible, however, at the academy's gates, where "they maintained day-to-day vigilance . . . but they've done much more, in their ability to look tough but remain pleasant," said Vice Adm. Rodney P. Rempt, the Naval Academy superintendent.

Turning to the Marines lined up behind him in the academy's Bancroft Hall in Annapolis, Rempt said: "You've become a part of us. God bless, fair winds and following seas."

The Marines are being replaced by Navy enlisted personnel.

Dozens of military installations across the nation have turned to civilian security officers in recent years, and the Navy is leaving that option open for the academy. The Army's U.S. Military Academy at West Point and post at Fort Meade brought on private security firms in 2004.

The sentries' departure reflects the strain on U.S. forces stretched thin by deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Obviously, we can use those Marines in more significant roles," said Gary Solis, a West Point professor and former official historian for the Marine Corps who frequently lectures at the Naval Academy. "But it's too bad a tradition like that has to end."

Marines have been providing security for the Naval Academy since 1851, six years after its founding. Back then, they were quartered aboard ships in the Severn River, which borders the 338-acre campus.

Michael I. Christman, a 1985 Naval Academy graduate who serves on the Annapolis City Council, taught his 2 1/2- year-old son to shout "ooh-rah" to the guards when the child passed through the gates to visit the campus. "It was just a way to pay respect to the guys standing duty, because it's not necessarily fun duty," Christman said.

The ceremony yesterday closed with a reading of the formal orders for the company to turn over its weapons and records. The academy band played a few bars of "Auld Lang Syne," then "Anchors Aweigh" and "The Marines' Hymn," as people in the crowd of 100 wiped their eyes. Dismissed for the final time, the young men wandered away.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

sam, you need to read this...you needn't trouble yourself with Iran...who are we gonna send?

[yourdaddy]

We have a wonderful Strategic Air Command, The world's best Navy, and plenty of troops for their piss ant army. When the population is 80% against their "leaders", you can probably get it done with just an Air Force.

[DJ_Asia]

Bush is an idiot.

He has depleted our armed forces on a war that had no business being waged other than to line the pockets of his oil and construction buddies.

Afghanistan,Iraq and soon probably Iran.Meanwhile China is strengthening by the day.The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is the world’s largest armed force with a total strength of 2.5 million men and women serving in four arms—ground forces, air force, navy, and strategic missile force. The ground forces alone total some 2 million troops and support personnel, or 80% of the PLA’s total manpower. This force also deploys 11,000 tanks, 4,000 armoured vehicles, and 25,000 artillery guns and multiple rocket launchers (MRLs). In time of crisis, this force can be reinforced by a large reserve-militia force numbering more than 1.5 million personnel and the one-million-man People's Armed Police (PAP).

In contrast US has 140,000 troops in Iraq.Do the math.

.China's economy is booming,and no small percentage is being pumped into military spending.China also is involved with a treaty with Russia called the Sino-Russian Friendship Treaty.It is a commonly known fact that we are the sole defenders of Taiwan,which to this day China still claims as its own.When(not if) China decides America is militarily spent what will keep them from invading Taiwan?! When that happens America will be forced into a conflict that because of the Sino-Russian Friendship Treaty will pit us against two nuclear armed super powers..a war we cannot win.

And lets not forget North Korea who is and always has been a more pertinent threat to global stability than Iraq.That crazy Bastard Kim in N.Korea decides to go postal,China will back them up.

China is the tiger in hiding,and history tells us that their doctrine and philosophies are of a "Mother China"..Taiwan,all the way down to the edge of SE Asia.They get a hair up their ass,Laos,Cambodia,Viet Nam,Thailand,Myanmar,Indonesia,Malaysia and Singapore all would fall in very short time.
China isnt stupid.They are waiting until we are depleted and then the shit will hit the fan.

American press isnt telling you any of this,but the information is available for you if you want to know the grim truth.

Wake up people.

DJ Asia

[samstl99]

Bush is an idiot.

He has depleted our armed forces on a war that had no business being waged other than to line the pockets of his oil and construction buddies.

Afghanistan,Iraq and soon probably Iran.Meanwhile China is strengthening by the day with an armed forces estimated at half a million several years ago.China's economy is booming,and no small percentage is being pumped into military spending.China also is involved with a treaty with Russia called the Sino-Russian Friendship Treaty.It is a commonly known fact that we are the sole defenders of Taiwan,which to this day China still claims as its own.When(not if) China decides America is militarily spent what will keep them from invading Taiwan?! When that happens America will be forced into a conflict that because of the Sino-Russian Friendship Treaty will pit us against two nuclear armed super powers..a war we cannot win.

And lets not forget North Korea who is and always has been a more pertinent threat to global stability than Iraq.That crazy Bastard Kim in N.Korea decides to go postal,China will back them up.

China is the tiger in hiding,and history tells us that their doctrine and philosophies are of a "Mother China"..Taiwan,all the way down to the edge of SE Asia.They get a hair up their ass,Laos,Cambodia,Viet Nam,Thailand,Myanmar,Indonesia,Malaysia and Singapore all would fall in very short time.
China isnt stupid.They are waiting until we are depleted and then the shit will hit the fan.

American press isnt telling you any of this,but the information is available for you if you want to know the grim truth.

Wake up people.

DJ Asia


DJ. Dead On. China calls the US a paper tiger. There are Government documents (from China). That China believes that because of the US greed and money invested in the Billions of people in China.. that they think we wont do anything should they take Taiwan. I have to say they are probably right. China still believes that the old dynasty boundaries are theirs. All of Indo China and through the Vietnam peninsula.

[chefmike]

Fighting Iran Is A Losing Battle
by Simon Jenkins
www.huffingtonpost.com

Never pick a fight you know you cannot win. Or so I was told. Pick an argument if you must, but not a fight.

Nothing I have read or heard in recent weeks suggests that fighting Iran over its nuclear enrichment programme makes any sense at all. The very talk of it -- macho phrases about "all options open" -- suggests an international community so crazed with video-game enforcement as to have lost the power of coherent thought.


Iran is a serious country, not another two-bit post-imperial rogue waiting to be slapped about the head by a white man. It is the fourth largest oil producer in the world. Its population is heading towards 80m by 2010. Its capital, Tehran, is a mighty metropolis half as big again as London. Its culture is ancient and its political life is, to put it mildly, fluid.

All the following statements about Iran are true. There are powerful Iranians who want to build a nuclear bomb. There are powerful ones who do not. There are people in Iran who would like Israel to disappear. There are people who would not. There are people who would like Islamist rule throughout western Asia. There are people who would not. There are people who long for some idiot western politician to declare war on them. There are people appalled at the prospect. The only serious question for western strategists is which of these people do they want to help.

Of all the treaties passed in my lifetime the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty always seemed the most implausible. It was an insiders' club which any outsider could defy with a modicum of guile. So it has proved. America, sitting armed to the teeth across Korea's demilitarised zone, has let North Korea become a nuclear power despite a 1994 promise that it would not. America supported Israel in going nuclear. Britain and America did not balk at India doing so, nor Pakistan when it not only built a bomb but deceitfully disseminated its technology in defiance of sanctions. Three flagrant dissenters from the NPT are thus regarded by America as friends.

I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defence?

None the less this month's reopening of the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant and two others, though purportedly for peaceful uses, was a clear act of defiance by Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Inspectors from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remain unsure whether it implies a secret weapons programme but the evidence for this is far stronger than, for instance, against Saddam Hussein. To have infuriated the IAEA's Mohamed ElBaradei takes some doing. As Saddam found, deviousness in nuclear matters is bound to arouse suspicion. Either way, the reopening yielded a strong diplomatic coalition of Europe, America, Russia and China in pleading with Ahmadinejad to desist.

On Monday of this week Washington's knee-jerk belligerence in hinting at an attack on Iran put this coalition under immediate strain. In two weeks the IAEA must decide whether to report Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. There seems little point in doing this if China and Russia veto them or if there is no plan B for what to do if such pressure fails to halt enrichment, which seems certain. A clear sign of western floundering is speeches and editorials concluding that Iran "should not take international concern lightly," the West should "be on its guard" and everyone "should think carefully." It means nobody has a clue.

I cannot see how all this confrontation will stop Iran doing whatever it likes with its nuclear enrichment, which is reportedly years away from producing weapons-grade material. The bombing of carefully dispersed and buried sites might delay deployment. But given the inaccuracy of American bombers, the death and destruction caused to Iran's cities would be a gift to anti-western extremists and have every world terrorist reporting for duty. It will reinforce the case for building a nuclear weapon.

Nor would the "coward's war" of economic sanctions be any more effective. Refusing to play against Iranian footballers (hated by the clerics), boycotting artists, ostracising academics, embargoing commerce, freezing foreign bank accounts -- so-called smart sanctions -- are as counterproductive as could be imagined. Such feel-good gestures drive the enemies of any embattled regime into silence, poverty or exile. As Tim Garton-Ash wrote in these pages after a recent visit, western aggression "would drain overnight its still large reservoir of anti-regime, mildly pro-Western sentiment." Why set Ahmadinejad up for such a triumph?

By all accounts this president is by no means secure. He is subject to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. His wily foe, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, retains a degree of power. Tehran is not a Saddamist dictatorship or a Taliban autocracy. It is a shambolic oligarchy with bureaucrats and technocrats jostling for power with clerics. Despite a quarter century of effort, the latter have not succeeded in creating a truly fundamentalist islamic state. Iran is a classic candidate for the politics of subtle engagement.

This means strengthening every argument in the hands of those Iranians who do not want nuclear weapons and do not want Israel eliminated, who crave a secular state and good relations with the west. No such argument embraces name-calling, sabre-rattling, sanctions or bombs.

At this very moment American officials in Baghdad are on their knees begging Iran-backed Shiite politicians and militias to help them get out of Iraq. From Basra to the suburbs of Baghdad, Iranian influence is dominant. Iranian posters adorned last month's elections. Whatever Bush and Blair thought they were doing by invading Iraq, they must have known the chief beneficiary from toppling the Sunni ascendancy would be Shiite Iran. They cannot now deny the logic of their own policy. Democracy itself is putting half Iraq in thrall to its powerful neighbour.

Iran is the regional super-state. If ever there were a realpolitik demanding to be "hugged close" it is this one, however distasteful its leader and his centrifuges. If you cannot stop a man buying a gun, the next best bet is to make him your friend, not your enemy.

[GroobySteven]

You idiots need to go an read some history on Taiwan/China issues and then maybe travel there and see what it's all about. This board has sunk to new lows of ignorance and idiocy.
seanchai

[Felicia Katt]

and Felicia. I said that Bush used the wrong thing to go to war with Iraq... and that the slam dunk was the WMD. Had he used those others that were true.. he may not have gotten approval. So by your post Felicia.. Clinton committed fraud as well. Are you willing to admit that?

Did I miss an Iraq invasion? Did the liberal media hide another 2 thousand dead soldiers and over 30,000 dead civilians? Was it covered on Fox? Should I change my Media PC settings?

Please get real. Clinton may have said there were WMD, but he never said we were within 45 minutes of an atomic mushroom cloud, or a small pox epidemic. He kept his foot on Saddam's neck with sanctions, (the same santioncs this administration admitted were working both before and after 9-11) and didn't lead us into what is shaping up as another bloody quagmire like Vietnam.

You keep trying to shift the focus away from the truth by reference to Clinton, and Iran and now China. But this is about Iraq, where there were no WMD. There were no WMD programs. There was no real capability to start any. There was a tinhorn dictator, pinned down in Bagdad by UN resolve and Allied air forces who hoped, against hope, that he could maybe one day regain his power in the region. Someone with no connection to 9-11, who posed no real threat to this country. All of the other reasons now being hindsighted to invade are meaningless because they weren't advanced until after the WMD proved to be illusory. The American people and their representatives in Congress would never have supported this invasion but for the frenzy of fear whipped up, falsely by Bush and his administration.

FK

[yourdaddy]

"Kept his foot on Saddam's neck" Felicia, I usually don't answer your posts, because I actually feel sorry for your naivte. But when you say that slick willie had SDaddam under control, that just shows how damned ignorant you are. Saddam had bill clinton, the U.N., the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans, all on the take. Guess you'd better cancel your NY Times subscription, it's dumbing you up, silly girl.

[mbf]

yourdaddy must be a bot.

if in any posting occur the words "bush" "hate" "bad" and a few others turn up in close proximity that (badly programmed) programme spits out "hero ollie north" "stop reading ny times" "naive dumbass liberals" blah blah blah...

[Felicia Katt]

Yourdaddy, I don't read the NYT. Are Powell, and Rice and Cheney columnists in it? Again, is my mainstream liberal media misleading me about Iraq in the 90's? Did the no- fly zones somehow miss the no-spin zone? Did the sanctions get lifted as high as Lewinski's skirt and Hannity overlooked that?

I appreciate your not responding to my posts, because your baseless, biased and divisive comments don't add to the debate. Your posts are always negative and only subtract from the discussions here. You never provide proof for a single thing you say.

Someone whose world view is so simple and narrow as America is always right and Bush is never wrong is the one who is uninformed and unwordly. I'd tell you your picture is in the dictionary next to naive, but I don't want you to be disappointed when you go look.

FK

[samstl99]

Felicia.

While I agree that Bush F***ed up. You are still dealing in Black and Whites. You seem to think that Saddam was perfectly innocent. He wasnt. There is a middle ground and you fail to see it.

Now onto picking you post apart.. silly piece by piece.

First off I never said that Clinton invaded Iraq... you are trying to sensationalize things and it is a cheap ploy. Clinton did Kill alot of innocent Iraqis. In Fact there was a huge uproar during the bombing raids that The Allied forces were bombing innocent targets. Yes Bush used the wrong argument for going to war... but Clinton did the same thing. Just because they are different doesnt make one right and one wrong. They both defrauded the public. PERIOD.

Another attempt to sensationalize your stance.. BUSH NEVER SAID we are 45 minutes from a mushroom cloud or bio attack... this is a stupid statement.

And yeah Clinton really kept his foot on Saddam's neck.. That is why he opposed the UN the whole time and brutalized his own people and the Kurds under Clinton's watch.. Yeah.. he did a great job. NOT.

And you say that I keep bringing up Iran.. China and Clinton. First I didnt start the China talk.

and I did bring up Iran.. and Clinton because they are similar situations. If you believe one way in regards to Iraq... then you have to feel the same in regards to Clinton and Iran... if not then you are a hypocrit.

And my my my.. you are Naive. Saddam was an evil horrible man.. He killed thousands of innocent people... his own people... he was a rallying point for opposition to the US. Again you are Naive about WMD. You think in your fantasy world that he never had them... Do you not realize that he DID have some weapons.. HELL how do you think he killed 1000s of his own people?.. Do you not want to see that? Ohh but I guess he did that by magic.. and it really wasn a Chemical nerve agent. I guess he is on trial RIGHT Now because 1000s of his own people died because they all had a case of some kind of fatal flu...

Get out of your Dream world. He did have some weapons.. What the US had to Prove was that he was REPRODUCING Them. And while there were some things that pointed to that he might.. there was no CONCRETE proof that he was. THAT is where things went wrong.

You really are living in a fantasyland.. there is NO Utopia.

[samstl99]

Felicia.. Let me ask you a question?

How did you feel when 9/11 happened?

What were your thoughts on how the Government handled things before the attack.. and directly after??

[Felicia Katt]

Sam, read the news. Read the official reports. They found no weapons. They found no weapons programs. They found nothing they said they would find. Everything they said turned out to be wrong.

I'm not defending Saddam. He was an evil despotic dictator who had used chemical weapons in the past. 12 plus years past. But his being a tyrant wasn't the case for war. If it were, we would have to invade half the world. This isn't about who Saddam was, its about what Bush said, and whether it was based on fact, or was just a pretext to their real reasons for war.

Since you seem to miss the point, you probably missed this quote.
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” –President Bush

If he had said that in 1990, it would have been true, but in 2003, it was totally, and I believe knowingly false. That was the fantasy. The reality is a lot harsher. No concrete proof, just a quicksand of deceit, and thousands of dead soldiers and civilians.

FK

[DJ_Asia]

You idiots need to go an read some history on Taiwan/China issues and then maybe travel there and see what it's all about. This board has sunk to new lows of ignorance and idiocy.
seanchai

Hmmmmm....where do we start?

from the Washington Times

China is preparing for nuclear war with the United States over Taiwan, and a conflict is likely in the near future because of divisions among Beijing's leaders, a Chinese democracy activist says.
Wei Jingsheng, a leading international advocate for political reform in China, said in an interview with The Washington Times that President Bush and other U.S. leaders do not fully understand the chance of a conflict breaking out and must do more to avert it.
"Sino-U.S. relations are reaching a crucial point and most of the American public does not know about," said Mr. Wei, who spent almost 18 years in Chinese prisons before his release in 1997. "The United States needs to pay more attention to the possibility of nuclear war with China."
Mr. Wei said he has heard from government officials in China, including some within the military, who are worried by the growing chance of a nuclear war.
Recent Chinese military exercises and a Chinese general's threat to use nuclear missiles against U.S. cities are two signs of the danger, said Mr. Wei, who has an office in Washington.
"In the past, China may have felt that it was not time for them to confront the U.S.," Mr. Wei said. "Now, things are different. Now the Chinese feel that they need to use these kind of nuclear threats. China is very serious about that. The nuclear threat from China is a substantial threat, not theoretical."
The comments come as Chinese President Hu Jintao is set to visit Washington next week. They also echo Pentagon concerns that China is preparing to attack Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China, in the next few years.
Mr. Wei also said that social unrest is growing rapidly in China and that hundreds of demonstrations in recent months have weakened Communist Party rule.
In Chinese history, he said, unrest has been a sign that a ruler is about to fall, prompting concern among Beijing's communist leaders.
China's leadership is divided by factions headed by Mr. Hu and former President Jiang Zemin, Mr. Wei said. Additionally, there are elements within the military who think that a war to retake Taiwan should begin as soon as possible, Mr. Wei said.
"There are many conflicts within the military," he noted.
Politically, differences between Mr. Hu and Vice President Zeng Qinghong, who in the past was considered a Jiang loyalist, appear to have been resolved temporarily, Mr. Wei said.
The accommodation appears related to a decision to use force in the future against Taiwan, Mr. Wei said, adding that Mr. Hu favors a conflict as a way to consolidate power over the military. Growing nationalist sentiment in China also has led to public calls for war over Taiwan.
"Many wars in the past have started from such conditions," he said.
To avert war, Mr. Wei urged the Bush administration to put more pressure on China's government in the area of human rights and trade, try to influence the Chinese military by finding and supporting anti-war military leaders and drive a wedge between China and the communist government in North Korea.
"The goal should be to reduce the voice of the people who want to go to war," he said.

Other sources,but certainly not all.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FB24Ad01.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3701114.stm
http://www.fas.org/news/taiwan/1996/s960314-taiwan2.htm
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_17a.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050831-102439-9296r.htm

DJ Asia

[Felicia Katt]

Felicia.. Let me ask you a question?
How did you feel when 9/11 happened?
What were your thoughts on how the Government handled things before the attack.. and directly after??
I was horrified and deeply deeply saddened. I couldn't watch the endless tv coverage with all the terrifying footage being played over and over again. I hugged my loved ones. I read the paper, and spent hours online on the news sites and listening to news radio. To this day, I try not to watch tv news.

I thought FDNY and all the emerency personnel who entered that hell were beyond heroic and still do. I read the stories about how New Yorkers came together and worked in unity and was deeply moved. I read about Mayor Guliani's actions and was very impressed. I heard Bush give a speech, right before they re-opened the Stock markets, and while I found how he said it was awkward and stilted, I agreed with his idea, that people should not let the terrorist succeed by not being terrified, by going about their lives, by spending, taking vacations etc. I hadn't voted for him and I had been deeply disturbed by everything that followed the Election, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision, which I still think is one of its worst and most rawly and wrongly political ones ever. But I thought Bush was finally trying to represent all the people and not just his base, and I was grateful for the effort.

But I saw early on that 9-11 was quickly being used for political reasons, and there was a push if not a rush to make someone , anyone pay, before the proof was in, even if maybe they were not responsible. I had to bite my tongue when I heard my friends talking about nuking Afghanistan. and that blindly angry thinking seemed to me to lead inexorably to the war and the present mess in Iraq. Revenge is a dish best served cold and we were fresh out of the oven

I have never believed all the 9-11 conspiracy stuff. I don't think Bush and Rove et al staged this for their political gain. But I do believe they have opportunistically taken advantage of it, fully, and that in doing so, they have mislead the country into war, and to the brink of Constitutional crisis over privacy and power.

Now Sam, answer me this. Was this the Kitty Dukakis question? did you expect me to give some dry, wonkish answer, all ideology and no feelings? Sorry to disappoint you if that was your intent. I care deeply about people. I've turned the other cheek and helped people here who have said hurtful things against me, and I try very hard to follow the golden rule about doing unto others. I try to have high standards I just want my Government to do the same.

FK

[goldtop]

Interesting thread. You mostly seem like decent people, well read, articulate and well meaning. It is important for us all to struggle towards obtaining the truth about world affairs but really the idea that any of us, with access only to second hand information at absolute best has any insight into events such as these is ludicrous.

We simply do not know what REALLY happened in the air strike and we never will.

[samstl99]

Felicia. The reason why I asked those questions is because the majority of the US was up in arms when they learned that we had circumspect knowledge of an attack on the US but it was dismissed because no one has ever attack the US Mainland. I am sure you remember the investigation into how there was some intelligence that came through about this attack... and yet because we couldnt prove it to be 100% accurate.. we did not act on it. Also back in the Clinton era. we had hordes of information on Osama., and knew for a fact that he was organizing people to attack the US. (this came from Clinton himself). We had a chance to take him out before all of this... but we didnt.

So taking this history, how can you completely and 100% say that we were in the wrong. (Hindsight being 20/20 is always correct and I am not asking about what we know now). Look at the facts. We have a tyrant who was killing his own people. a tyrant that was VERY outspoken against the US, a Tyrant that we know had chem/bio weapons (because we gave them to him). A guy who admittedly wanted to increase his bio/chem capabilities. (wanted is the key word). A guy that for a decade refused to adhere to UN resolutions. (and you have to ask.. WHY was he refusing to allow inspections..and abide by the resolutions). A guy that was buying banned parts from France and Germany.. that could be used for weapons production.. whether that could be bio/chem or SCUD (remember he was banned from having SCUD capability by the UN). A guy that admittedly wanted to take over the whole Middle East.(including Saudi Arabia, Iran,.. basically the entire Persian Gulf) So knowing all of this.. what is one to conclude.. Coming on the heels of 9/11. Should any one of these come true.. and the American public realize that we had this information.. everyone would have said.. WHy didnt we do something about it before hand... JUST like people were up in arms about 9/11.

Of course Hindsight is a wonderful thing.. but you have to look at this at the time of the decision.

Now once they have learned that not everything was correct, they cant exactly just stop.. and leave a country in shambles. Again.. they did find some evidence that was circumstancal... but nothing concrete. I gave you examples of things that were pieces of what they wanted to find..but they could not complete the puzzle. But you dont seem to want to acknowledge these facts.

We learned alot from the Kuwait war. We left the country in terrible shape, and Saddam got even worse. You just cant pull out of Iraq. That would be the worse thing to do. You have to finish the job and get the country back on its feet.

[Felicia Katt]

Sam, this is going around and around and getting nowhere. I was opposed to the war from the beginning. 9-11 had nothing to do with Saddam at all. The situation in Iraq was the same on 9-12 as it had been for 12 plus years before. All that changed was that there a climate of fear and anger that the administration exploited in building a case for war. The evidence is there that they wanted to take out Saddam before 9-11. Its there that they directed their focus on Iraq before the smoke ever cleared, and they were bound and determined to invade, no matter what happend, and no matter what world opinion was in the time before the Invasion.

Osama had everything to do with 9-11 and they haven't found him. For the last years, you never hear a thing about him from Bush.

As far as the mess we are in now, you don't plan to fail, you fail to plan. The administratiion had no real plan beyond taking out Saddam, and they were horribly wrong about how we would be welcomed and how to manage the peace. Its nearly 3 years since the invasion, and the bloodshed is ongoing, rebuiilding is minimal, and we do not have anything close to an Iraqi Marshall plan like we did for Europe. If we were doing any good in Iraq, I'd say stay, but the only thing really being built up there is the Iraqi people's resentment of us and Halliburtons stock price.

FK

[samstl99]

Felicia,

You are right, on a few things. We assumed that the Iraqi people would welcome us more than they have and that resistance would be minimal once Saddam was gone. But what has happened is the warlords and Clerics saw it as an opportunity to take control of their area and rebel at what they saw as a weak government.. It is going to be weak until it has some years behind it and has some teeth. If we were to withdraw now and let the Clerics go at it, we would be condemned worldwide for not keeping control of a situation that we created. So we cant leave until the Iraqi government has some control. THat is the unfortunate truth.

And I do agree that we had our sights on Iraq before 9/11. Hell we were bombing him for years prior.. for the same reasons that we invaded.

But the point is and it is simple, that with these speculations, and our prior history with Iraq. (the bombing in 98 and the Kuwait war) and Saddam's public statements, cant you see that the US didnt want to make a mistake by not doing something.. Like they made a mistake with Al Quaeda? No one wants to have a congressional hearing on why when we perceived someone as a threat we did nothing about it. That IS what happened with the perceived threat with Al Quaeda.. we did nothing.. saw it as circumspect and lo and behold.. we got caught.. and the powers that be were Wrong. Now the same scenario, in general, is being played out with Saddam and the government this time said, we are not going to make this mistake again.. and they acted. Now History shows us that they were wrong. But the US was not going to take that chance after 9/11 and our failure to act on information.. even though it was not 100% accredited.

I am not saying that you have to believe in the war.. .Just understand the thought process that went into the decision. And remember.. Bush may have wanted to go to war.. but the Democrats still had the power to say No to war.

Was there alterior motives.. Of Course.. There always are. There are lobbyists trying to get things done on every single piece of legislation that goes through. So to say that Haliburton was making tons of money.. is true.. but for every thing the government does.. SOMEONE makes a ton of money off of it.

Again Iraq and 9/11 do play together because of the change is policy that the US took on. Never before had the US mainland ever sustained any kind of foreign attack. and by all the information.. it could have been avoided. But our complacent attitude got us. So we changed our stance and policy. Once that policy was changed... it changed the way we resolved other issues. in this instance Iraq. I know it sucks.. but what if.. just what if.. the intelligence was right? and we did nothing against Iraq. I know it is a hypothetical situation. What if it was right.. and we did nothing.. and we did sustain some kind of attack from Iraq and the public found out.. the outcry would be immense. So they US did not want to take that chance and have it happen again.

Remember for 12 years IRAQ avoided all UN resolutions and Inspections that would have calmed world fears that he was amassing weapons. So with not knowing what he was or was not doing.. BUT knowing his intentions. What conclusion is one to draw on.. WHat was he hiding? So the impact of 9/11 did play a part in the thinking..

And beyond it all Felicia.. this is a discussion.. and it isnt personal... I dont mind discussing opposing viewpoints with anyone.. as long as people do take it personal.

[Felicia Katt]

mispost, sorry

[chefmike]

Pakistan PM: CIA attack reports 'bizarre'
No evidence that top al Qaeda leaders were at target, he says
Sunday January 22, 2006

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Sunday ridiculed as "bizarre" a U.S. report that senior al Qaeda leaders were killed in a CIA attack on a home along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

more here-

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/22/pakistan.attack/index.html