More amazing concidences in the war on terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve

As you well informed patroits have established, scenarios exist everwhere for conflict around the globe. That is not a reason to established our presence with fighting ground troops. We have a duty to protect what we have not to try to dilute it somewhere else

---

You don't think that diluting threats elsewhere protects what we have?

Here's another "coincidence"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/06/po...06anthrax.html

An upstate New York home and a Jersey Shore cottage owned by a doctor and self-described bioterrorism expert were searched yesterday by federal agents investigating the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks, but there was no apparent breakthrough in the long-running case.

We haven't heard anything about the Anhrax attacks in over a year. So the Feds just "happen" to search some homes so criticism of the Bush phony warnings on terrorism are forced off the news.

So what would you have the Feds do, sit on their a$$es and do nothing? Maybe these raids have something with a scathing report being released criticizing the Feds for doing just that. As for Sodom, I mean Saddam, that guy was a time bomb waiting to go off. France, Russia, Germany, the free press and others had been underming and eroding the support of the British and US' efforts ever since the end of the first Gulf War. Saddam, whether he actually possessed WMD's at the time of the recent invasion or not, threatened the world's oil supply. Stop for a minute and try to comprehend just what that really means. It goes way beyond just the privilege of driving SUV's on US highways. The world is dependent now on oil for its very survival. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer or organic subsistence farmer every aspect of your life depends on the flow of oil, like it or not. We have a right to survival and if we can help the rest of the world in the process then that's just wonderful. So we got a few hotheads in the Middle East riled up, considering the alternative its a small price to pay. The only thing to criticize both Clinton and Bush concerning Iraq is lacking a cohesive plan for running Iraq once Saddam was out of the way. As for the long-range missiles, and to that I think you are referring to the ABM shield, that should go a long way to countering the threat of North Korea. Unlike Iraq, we or anybody else in the West can't invade North Korea because of threat from China and the threat of harm to South Korea so our options are really limited. The bugs have not been entirely worked out of the ABM program but they are being worked out and I WILL feel alot better once its been fully implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Rezin

So what would you have the Feds do, sit on their a$$es and do nothing? Maybe these raids have something with a scathing report being released criticizing the Feds for doing just that. As for Sodom, I mean Saddam, that guy was a time bomb waiting to go off. France, Russia, Germany, the free press and others had been underming and eroding the support of the British and US' efforts ever since the end of the first Gulf War. Saddam, whether he actually possessed WMD's at the time of the recent invasion or not, threatened the world's oil supply. Stop for a minute and try to comprehend just what that really means. It goes way beyond just the privilege of driving SUV's on US highways. The world is dependent now on oil for its very survival. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer or organic subsistence farmer every aspect of your life depends on the flow of oil, like it or not. We have a right to survival and if we can help the rest of the world in the process then that's just wonderful. So we got a few hotheads in the Middle East riled up, considering the alternative its a small price to pay. The only thing to criticize both Clinton and Bush concerning Iraq is lacking a cohesive plan for running Iraq once Saddam was out of the way. As for the long-range missiles, and to that I think you are referring to the ABM shield, that should go a long way to countering the threat of North Korea. Unlike Iraq, we or anybody else in the West can't invade North Korea because of threat from China and the threat of harm to South Korea so our options are really limited. The bugs have not been entirely worked out of the ABM program but they are being worked out and I WILL feel alot better once its been fully implemented.

---

What are your talking about Meatwad? They have been pounding Grandma
Barbara's sandbox now for the socalled Weapons of Mass destruction. They can
not find them!!! Saddam Husssein did not attack us. Hussein was at the right--far right place at the right time We are diluting our strength with these fist fights. We need to spend our time and money on energy independence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve

What are your talking about Meatwad? They have been pounding Grandma
Barbara's sandbox now for the socalled Weapons of Mass destruction. They can
not find them!!! Saddam Husssein did not attack us. Hussein was at the right--far right place at the right time We are diluting our strength with these fist fights. We need to spend our time and money on energy independence

---

Define attack. No he did not declare war on us. He doesnt have the balls, nor is he that stupid to do so. No he did not invade the US or US territories. That would invoke full retaliation from NATO. But he did shoot at our planes that were flying over the no fly zone established by the UN. That is attacking us. And so in our need to spend our time an money on energy independence, we are just to ignor everything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Rezin

So what would you have the Feds do, sit on their a$$es and do nothing? Maybe these raids have something with a scathing report being released criticizing the Feds for doing just that. As for Sodom, I mean Saddam, that guy was a time bomb waiting to go off. France, Russia, Germany, the free press and others had been underming and eroding the support of the British and US' efforts ever since the end of the first Gulf War. Saddam, whether he actually possessed WMD's at the time of the recent invasion or not, threatened the world's oil supply. Stop for a minute and try to comprehend just what that really means. It goes way beyond just the privilege of driving SUV's on US highways. The world is dependent now on oil for its very survival. Unless you are a hunter-gatherer or organic subsistence farmer every aspect of your life depends on the flow of oil, like it or not. We have a right to survival and if we can help the rest of the world in the process then that's just wonderful. So we got a few hotheads in the Middle East riled up, considering the alternative its a small price to pay. The only thing to criticize both Clinton and Bush concerning Iraq is lacking a cohesive plan for running Iraq once Saddam was out of the way. As for the long-range missiles, and to that I think you are referring to the ABM shield, that should go a long way to countering the threat of North Korea. Unlike Iraq, we or anybody else in the West can't invade North Korea because of threat from China and the threat of harm to South Korea so our options are really limited. The bugs have not been entirely worked out of the ABM program but they are being worked out and I WILL feel alot better once its been fully implemented.

---

Our conflicting thoughts are the long run implications of invading Iraq. Obviously you think that the situation in Iraq will stabilize and we will have an ally that has the second largest oil reserves in the world. I believe that we have set in motion a hatred towards the US and the governments that we support/control.
I am sure Iran looked like it was going well until the Fundamentalists took over. I believe that within say 10 years we will be fighting in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Mid-east countries where the people have been so radicalized by our nations occupation/dominance that we will have far less oil than we do now.

As to missile defense. First off, does North Korea have nuclear bombs? How do we know? They told us? Maybe they told us so we wouldn't invade. I predict that after the election you will see a new CIA assessment that changes the idea they have the bomb to we're not sure. There have been numerous newspaper stories that indicate the CIA is "reassessing".
With terrorism so rampant and destroying a nucler power plant being so much easier than making a nuclear bomb and a missile to deliver it terrorism is far more of an immediate concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jediab

Define attack. No he did not declare war on us. He doesnt have the balls, nor is he that stupid to do so. No he did not invade the US or US territories. That would invoke full retaliation from NATO. But he did shoot at our planes that were flying over the no fly zone established by the UN. That is attacking us. And so in our need to spend our time an money on energy independence, we are just to ignor everything else?

---

Jediab, in reading your post I couldn't help but remember yet another coincidence. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The data that the
American people recieve has had next to no integrity from our current commander and chief and those that preceded them. The case in point that I would like to point you to is this recored conversation between he then Commander and Chief and McNamara just before we declared war on Viet Nam.
Listen for the term "35a" Click on the first Audio link "All things considered audio"
and listen to Walter Cronkite's perspective after he got the truth.
steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve

Jediab, in reading your post I couldn't help but remember yet another coincidence. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The data that the
American people recieve has had next to no integrity from our current commander and chief and those that preceded them. The case in point that I would like to point you to is this recored conversation between he then Commander and Chief and McNamara just before we declared war on Viet Nam.
Listen for the term "35a" Click on the first Audio link "All things considered audio"
and listen to Walter Cronkite's perspective after he got the truth.
steve

---

Excuse me here is the link http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3810724

steve

Hey Steve, make sure that you hit the right quote button next time chief.

Fact. Sadaam had weapons that he used on his own people.

Fact. Sadaam had illegal long range scud missles.

Fact. Working Mig fighter jets were found buried in the desert by American soldiers AFTER the US began it's invasion.

We've found FEW weapons, but don't say we haven't found any, because that just isn't correct.

Fact. No nuclear weapons were found.

Fact. No biological weapons were found.

Fact. No chemical weapons were found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

Hey Steve, make sure that you hit the right quote button next time chief.

Fact. Sadaam had weapons that he used on his own people.

Fact. Sadaam had illegal long range scud missles.

Fact. Working Mig fighter jets were found buried in the desert by American soldiers AFTER the US began it's invasion.

We've found FEW weapons, but don't say we haven't found any, because that just isn't correct.

---

We made sure Saddam H. had weapons to fight the (our) ten year war with Iran.
What was so special about Kuwait? I am not that naive.
steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

Fact. No nuclear weapons were found.

Fact. No biological weapons were found.

Fact. No chemical weapons were found.

---

Why is it the U.N. was allowed to have 12 years, AND they said they needed more time to find them, but one year later the US are supposedly the idiots because we haven't found much yet?

No, your government are idiots because they insisted that two out of three of these existed, and that they were a major reason for the invasion, and now they won't admit that there is egg on their face when they couldn't find them after the fact.

The UN should be PROUD of the fact that they were unwilling to invade without conclusive proof.

Would YOU appreciate it if someone blew up your house with a missile based on sketchy intelligence about whether you owned a nuke or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

No, your government are idiots because they insisted that two out of three of these existed, and that they were a major reason for the invasion, and now they won't admit that there is egg on their face when they couldn't find them after the fact.

The UN should be PROUD of the fact that they were unwilling to invade without conclusive proof.

Would YOU appreciate it if someone blew up your house with a missile based on sketchy intelligence about whether you owned a nuke or not?

---

They did, as well as the British, admit that there was egg on there face. They admitted that they had incorrect information. Would you be shocked if you were arrested because the cops had information that you were selling drugs, when low and behold you'd been convicted several times in the past for being a drug dealer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve

We made sure Saddam H. had weapons to fight the (our) ten year war with Iran.
What was so special about Kuwait? I am not that naive.
steve

---

Ummm...I just want to point out that though you may be partially correct in your statement the last time I looked the US doesn't supply MIGs and SCUDS to folks. I just wanted to point that out. What is sort of interesting though and what would have been real kewl is if they had found a few Mirage's in the Iraqi desert. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif That would have been really embarrassing.

Now everybody carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

They did, as well as the British, admit that there was egg on there face. They admitted that they had incorrect information. Would you be shocked if you were arrested because the cops had information that you were selling drugs, when low and behold you'd been convicted several times in the past for being a drug dealer?

---

When you're arrested, you have civil rights. Also, if you didn't have any drugs, you would get off scott-free.

Not so when you are invaded.

I'm not saying Saddam should have gotten off scott free. But what about the thousands of Iraqis killed in the invasion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

When you're arrested, you have civil rights. Also, if you didn't have any drugs, you would get off scott-free.

Not so when you are invaded.

I'm not saying Saddam should have gotten off scott free. But what about the thousands of Iraqis killed in the invasion?

---

Or the tens of thousands that were saved by removing him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

Or the tens of thousands that were saved by removing him.

---

Many more are dying in other places that don't have oil...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

Many more are dying in other places that don't have oil...

---

And....

You're not proving that going into Iraq was bad, your just making the point that we still have a lot of work to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

And....

You're not proving that going into Iraq was bad, your just making the point that we still have a lot of work to do.

---

I never MADE the point that going into Iraq was bad. The point I made was that the US did it for the wrong REASONS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

Hey Steve, make sure that you hit the right quote button next time chief.

Fact. Sadaam had weapons that he used on his own people.

Fact. Sadaam had illegal long range scud missles.

Fact. Working Mig fighter jets were found buried in the desert by American soldiers AFTER the US began it's invasion.

We've found FEW weapons, but don't say we haven't found any, because that just isn't correct.

---

Fact: He HAD them. Past tense.

Fact: Saddam had illegal long range scud missiles. Yes, but they couldn't reach the US. They had a theoretical range of less than 700 miles.

Fact: Working MIg fighters? He had working Imig fighters NOT hidden in the desert.

We've found some weapons?
Are you watching Fox again?
We have found no WMD. Despite how Fox has tried to confuse you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

I never MADE the point that going into Iraq was bad. The point I made was that the US did it for the wrong REASONS.

---

So what's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

So what's the problem?

---

Who's next, and when, and more importantly, WHY?