How Do We Win in Iraq?

Frank, you so funny, man!

<yawn>

So the reason for invading Iraq was to ascertain whether or not Iraq had nukes? Seriously, one can hardly refer to bio- or chemical weaponry as the casa belli since the Iraqis had no delivery system capable of reaching the US. Moreover, if one wishes to point out the potential for a hidden nuke on a ship entering a US port one also has to explain why the Bush administration has refused to fund fully the means to check on this at the ports ($40 Billion in some estimates). Can't have those rich folks taxed to defend the country, now can we?

Well, the inspectors (the last ones, after the invasion) decided by 2004 that Iraq had no nukes, so one could have left then. Unfortunately, the result of learning this by invading first set the entire region into crisis.

Apparently if Bush saw a clump of brown matter on the ground and wondered it were a dog turd, he would have to bit into it to be sure, disregarding the consequences to his teeth, tongue and digestive system too.

There are better ways of finding out if that brown clump was a dog turd or not, and it did not require biting into it either. One could inspect it, without gnawing on it, say like using Hans Blix's group to find out if it were a turd to not. Nevertheless, nope, Bush bit into the turd, and lo and behold, it "weren't" no dog turd, but possibly something worse.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Frank, you so funny, man!

<yawn>

So the reason for invading Iraq was to ascertain whether or not Iraq had nukes? Seriously, one can hardly refer to bio- or chemical weaponry as the casa belli since the Iraqis had no delivery system capable of reaching the US.

What nonsense. The pieces of a WMD can be smuggled into the target country, re-assembled, and detonated from within. They don't need an ICBM.

kuvasz wrote:

Moreover, if one wishes to point out the potential for a hidden nuke on a ship entering a US port one also has to explain why the Bush administration has refused to fund fully the means to check on this at the ports ($40 Billion in some estimates)..

I am not familiar with how the Bush administration's policy differs from that of past administrations, or what reasons are given, but this will certainly be financed after some horrific incident, if not before.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Explain to me, please, how it is inappropriate to respond to a post in which a person specifically and explicitly insults my intellect by insulting his?

Ummm... "Well he did it first" is the kind of excuse I'd expect from a third-grader. Grow up Brandon.

I regard you as a completely dishonest and loathsome person, and will certainly not take anything you post seriously. You are not in a position to correct anyone about behavior.

There's the kettle calling the rose bush black....

All of your wind about dishonesty and loathsomeness is purely a projection on your part.

0 Replies

"What nonsense. The pieces of a WMD can be smuggled into the target country, re-assembled, and detonated from within. They don't need an ICBM."

Okay, so how are these smugglers going to bring those nukes into the US - then reassemble them for use?

0 Replies

Fair warning, Brandon. This is a trick question. I just want to see if you bite. LOL

0 Replies

seems to me, if anyone wants to cause serious injury to the united states, all they have to do is bring the bird flu into the states. probably not very difficult to bring infected birds to mexico and bring them stateside from there. the defences against bird-flu seem to be minimal or even non-existent at this time. personally i am more concerned about the bird-flu than any "so-called" WMD's. the bird-flu is the real stuff to worry about. hbg

0 Replies

Far more Americans have died from the results of drunk driving than from terrorism.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote

Quote:

Far more Americans have died from the results of drunk driving than from terrorism.

Let's us hope it remains that way.'

0 Replies

hbg, You ruined my question to Brandon. In other words, it's not necessary for anybody to bring a crisis to the US or any place else by use of a nuke. ;(

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Frank, you so funny, man!

<yawn>

So the reason for invading Iraq was to ascertain whether or not Iraq had nukes? Seriously, one can hardly refer to bio- or chemical weaponry as the casa belli since the Iraqis had no delivery system capable of reaching the US.

Brandon9000 wrote:

What nonsense. The pieces of a WMD can be smuggled into the target country, re-assembled, and detonated from within. They don't need an ICBM.

duh! see what i followed with immediately. you don't need missiles to deliver the nukes. that was the point of the second sentence.

kuvasz wrote:

Moreover, if one wishes to point out the potential for a hidden nuke on a ship entering a US port one also has to explain why the Bush administration has refused to fund fully the means to check on this at the ports ($40 Billion in some estimates)..

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am not familiar with how the Bush administration's policy differs from that of past administrations, or what reasons are given, but this will certainly be financed after some horrific incident, if not before.

Well, the issue really isn't what "past administrations" did, now is it?

Allegedly, "911" changed everything, or so your hero says ad nauseum.

What is revelent is that the fuc&king ass clown took us to war on the premise that he was doing it to prevent, as his nartional security advisor put it....."a mushroom cloud" over US cities, yet has not lifted a finger to ensure the most likely delivery system would be thwarted. i.e., via being smuggled into the country by boat.

You need to go back and take a course on logic theory. You just proclaimed your support for Bush going to war to ensure that iraq did not have nukes that could be used on the US while saying it is acceptable that Bush not initiate protective measures to stop a nuke from being smuggled in by boat UNTIL AFTER that alleged mushroom cloud appears.

the logical conclusion of your remarks are that you support a war of aggression based upon specious intelligence and staggering costs to stop bad things from happening, but are unwilling to demand from your hero the building up of timely defenses against attacks that costs less than 10% of what the war of aggression costs.

Reasonable people would call that both bloodthirsty and stupid.

go back and read up on this issue yourself, I am not your tutor. you are clueless about the Bush Administration's efforts to defund or discontinue past programs to stop the spread of fissionable material and initiate new ones or its recalcitrence to set up recommended progams to ensure our ports are safe.....and the reasons are the costs were deemed too high and taxes might have to be raised to fund them.

I throw you a bone, look up "Nunn-Lugar," the first Bush budget of 2001, and what Bush tried to do to N-L.

have a nice day, mr spellcheck.

0 Replies

Besides, we don't need a nuke to destroy this country. Bush and his minions are creating a federal deficit that our great, great, grandchildren will be paying on - and that all depends on how much longer we'll stayin Iraq to fight an insurgency that continues to recruit more than our country is able to get volunteers for our military - especially the army and marines. The insurgency will kill about 2,000 of our men and women every two years while the Iraqi citizens will suffer casualties in the tens of thousands.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

You're wrong. The potential consequences of Hussein with a stockpile of serious WMD outweigh almost any other consideration. The invasion was necessary by any rational standard.

There were inspectors on the ground looking for the WMD's and Bush ordered them out!.

This has been pointed out to you time and time again.

Bush's invasion cannot be justified on the grounds that he had to know if Iraq had WMD's since the inspectors were giving Bush the means to find that out before Bush invaded. And Bush ordered them out of Iraq and invaded.

The problem for Bush was that as the second round of inspections continued, they began to show that there may not be any WMD's in Iraq after all.

Bush clearly wanted to invade Iraq, WMD's or no WMD's. The WMD "threat" was just a means to scare the country into believing that unless we invade RIGHT NOW, whole states will be under poison clouds. Those who questioned the necessity for invasion were considered fools or worse. With the help of a nonquestioning, compliant press, Bush and his administration maneuvered the nation into jumping on the invasion bandwagon. He wasn't about to waste that momentum by allowing the inspectors to show the WMD threat didn't exist.

Now, years after the invasion has proven to be a fiasco, after we know there were no WMD's in the first place, Brandon9000 continues to maintain that poor Bush had no choice but to do what he did. Unbelievable.

0 Replies

"There were inspectors on the ground looking for the WMD's and Bush ordered them out!"

kelt, Several of us have already pointed out this very fact, but it seems they become deaf and dumb about what really happened to push their own agenda. They continue to play "what if" as if we already didn't have the UN inspectors looking for WMDs, and their conclusion that Saddam would have used it against us or given it to terrorists.

When logic leaves their sense of reality, nothing will satisfy their misguided rhetoric.

0 Replies

Quote:

Many say G.I. don't want to join Army

WASHINGTON - The Army closed the books yesterday on one of its worst recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service, missing its enlistment target by the widest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth.
Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger - perhaps by 50,000 soldiers beyond current troop strength of 1 million - in order to meet its commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but that will be hard to achieve if recruiters cannot persuade more to join.

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller, had even worse results.

The slump is not a crisis, officials insisted, although they predict 2006 will as tough as 2005, if not tougher.

"Combined with a good economy and continued negative news from the Middle East, that means recruiting ... will be challenging," Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said.

The active-duty Army had not missed its target since 1999. In 1979, recruiters missed significantly during a period when the Army was much bigger and its goals were double today's.

Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, said the Army would attract more recruits if it could offer shorter enlistments than the three-year norm.

"Recruiting is going to get harder and harder," Moskos said.

Just on more chink in the armor. You can't fight a war without sufficent boots on the ground. That lesson that should have been learned by Bush and company by this time.

0 Replies

So as fewer volunteer to fight in Iraq & the "coalition" grows weaker, what next? Surely not conscription?

0 Replies

msolga wrote

Quote:

So as fewer volunteer to fight in Iraq & the "coalition" grows weaker, what next? Surely not conscription?

Not without another 9/11 event. Maybe Bush can pay someone to attack the US. :wink:

0 Replies

We don't.
The question is irrelevant. Both Iraq and America lose. The real question is: How and when will the Bush Administration declare victory in Iraq? This will not depend upon stability of Iraq or security of America.

0 Replies

It is indeed a difficult thing to win a war that the troops main mission is "to stay alive long enough to go home" ... particularly when they are facing an enemy that has a true cause and no fear of death.

We will lose this war in Iraq because our cause is not just. It is certainly a sad sad truth.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"What nonsense. The pieces of a WMD can be smuggled into the target country, re-assembled, and detonated from within. They don't need an ICBM."

Okay, so how are these smugglers going to bring those nukes into the US - then reassemble them for use?

Except for the fissionable material, maybe they can ship them in in cigarette machines, or inside of statuettes. I don't know - thousanda of ways. It's not as if we had much inspection of our ports. I saw something on TV where a news network smuggled radioactive material in through one of the very few seaports in the US that actually does use radation detection equipment. They then drove it into a large city. If you think a determined person can't smuggle the pieces of a weapon in.....Well, I respectfully disagree.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Far more Americans have died from the results of drunk driving than from terrorism.

That's the past, but cannot be used as some kind of proof that someone can't smuggle a WMD in, as they become progressively easier to obtain.

0 Replies

How Do We Win in Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know