United States Loses War: Khadaffi defeats Obunga

Meanwhile, back in the Ivory Coast where large numbers of Christians are being massacred, Bork Obunga doesn't give a rat's ass:

http://www.favstocks.com/tens-of-thousands-of-refugees-trapped-at-christian-compound-after-mass-slaughter-in-duekoue/0541560/

No chance of the United States even getting involved, much less defeated in that one...

I'm still trying to figure out how to pick a side to root for in Libya, Khaddafi versus the slammite brotherhood. Kind of like Mike Tyson vs the Graham Brothers or something like that...

That means American money
remains where it rightly belongs and to whom.

And the republican trash Bush did such a great job with Iraq.

There was at least a real reason for Iraq...

Horseshit.
There was no reason, as we now know, for invading Iraq.
Having done so, we lost immense advantages in Afghanistan.
We gave immense advantage to those who oppose us in Iran and Pakistan.
We have created nothing in this effort but a gigantic muddle from the beaches of the Mediterranean to mountains of Kashmir.
Joe(All else is delusion)Nation

Well said!

And what would that be?

Hussein was provably involved in the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11. That means that George Bush had very few options unless you call letting somebody poison the US senate office building with anthrax and just skate an option, which is brain-dead. He could do what he did, which was try to take the high road, eliminate the Hussein regime, and try to construct a rational regime in Iraq both to prevent further attacks and to provide an example of rational government in the region, or he could do what I would have done, which would have been to level both Mecca and Medina, and ban the practice of I-slam not just in the US but throughout the world.

Most people would probably want to try what W. did first.

Oh, yeah, I know, you guys don't believe Hussein had anything to do with 9-11 or the anthrax attacks which followed...


The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up about ten miles from where Mohammed Atta himself had been living, i.e. the short drive from Coral Springs to Boca Raton.

The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.

There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.

Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try to buy and and modify a crop duster.

Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.

Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.

While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier. That is, it wsa mailed out for the purpose of allowing other nations to develop medicines to cure it, not to make weapons out of it...

Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:


http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html





Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:




There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.


The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.


At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:



I mean, we didn't even have fricking machinegun barrels anymore. A friend of mine called up several barrelmakers about a barrel for a target rifle in the early spring of 02 and was told they were working 24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civiliam firearm business.

A country with any sort of a military at all has to have warehouses full of that sort of thing and we had ******* none. We basically needed to go into Iraq the day after 9-11 and we were not able to due to the state Slick KKKlinton had left the military in, it took two years of building.


In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:



Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business.

The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/539dozfr.asp

Then again as I mentioned, there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.

The United States is basically a Christian country, and not a Libertarian one.

Even if you neglect every consideration of morality you could justify the occasional intervention in something like the Ivory Coast on the simple cost differential of dealing with Christians in the world versus dealing with slammites. We'd save money in the long run.

The Christians in America have a RIGHT to KEEP the $$ that thay own,
not to be robbed of it by their employee, government,
to be given away to africans.

Nothing in the US Constitution justifies robbing Americans
for the benefit of aliens; that is NOT part of the Constitutional deal.

Government has NO JURISDICTION to do that.
Better that the money be stolen by American criminals;
at least that way, it remains in the country.



There is no evidence of that, and government has NO JURISDICTION
to rob the citizens, merely to bring about future savings.





David

Horseshit.
Try to keep up.

NOT the Iraqis..... nope. One of us.

Joe(We are such a wacky group.)Nation

I am not the one peddling horse **** here. Multiple attacks with weaponized anthrax would take more than a couple of days to stage. An American responsible for those attacks, coming in as they did within days of 9/11 and originating in the back-yards of the 9/11 jackers, would have had to be in on 9/11 himself and still would have needed to get the stuff from Saddam Hussein since nobody else ever had anything like that. That stuff went right through envelope paper like it wasn't there and then stayed in the air.

Wired Magazine is full of **** and YOU are full of **** for quoting them.