No Weapons of Mass destruction! (real Shocker)

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Quote

Iraq unilaterally destroyed its hidden chemical weapons stockpile in 1991

That was never proven either...

But at least there's a respectable official report concluding that.

There is no report suggesting that there were WMD in country before the invasion.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

She never had a condom....

LOL But can you prove that?

[nigel99 616]

Colin Powell was one of the proponents of "containment is working" not long before the war.

The problem is that it was not 12 years of a hardened attitude inspections. Softly implemented non-agressive inspections were implemented for many years.

However only once the US were there with their military did the inspections start to work. By implication then it would have been possible for the inspections to continue for a further 12 months and acheive their objective - unfortunately the US administration misjudged how quickly, cleanly and decisively they would win and thought that war would be the "cheaper" alternative - or maybe they just wanted to fight regardless of what was the right thing to do. They were warned and it is not hindsight being perfect as 3 out of 5 of the members of the permenant security council held this view and were against the war.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[rhino 0]

Quote

There is no report suggesting that there were WMD in country before the invasion.

If I recall we found some shells full of gas? Some claim we supplied them.. lol

Do you only believe something if it is in a report? Come on man.... Use your head...

[rhino 0]

Quote

LOL But can you prove that?

lol

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

They did not swear to give their lifes for BS based on completely wrong facts

They swore to uphold their commander in chief's decisions (or the newspaper's, or the UN's, or Doctors Without Borders, etc). They are doing that honorably.

I do hope that we fire the current commander in chief. Especially after this.

Wendy W.

Wendy, I understand and respect what you are saying. These dead Americans died because they gave their word and trust to uphold the American way of life. Honorable indeed.

However, their trust was abused and tossed aside. Because of their oath the commander in chief knew he could set off an order and they would follow. This was an abuse of their oath.

Quote

In his report, and in testimony Wednesday to the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), Duelfer refuted many of the Bush administration's most dramatic claims before the war, basing his findings in part on extensive information gleaned from interrogations of Hussein and some of his top aides.


Duelfer said, for example, there was no evidence that Hussein sought to import uranium from Africa, as Bush claimed in his 2003 State of the Union speech. Duelfer said investigators also found no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Colin Powell was one of the proponents of "containment is working" not long before the war.

Colin Powell isn’t the President.

Quote

The problem is that it was not 12 years of a hardened attitude inspections. Softly implemented non-agressive inspections were implemented for many years.

Who’s fault is that?

Quote

However only once the US were there with their military did the inspections start to work. By implication then it would have been possible for the inspections to continue for a further 12 months and acheive their objective - unfortunately the US administration misjudged how quickly, cleanly and decisively they would win and thought that war would be the "cheaper" alternative - or maybe they just wanted to fight regardless of what was the right thing to do. They were warned and it is not hindsight being perfect as 3 out of 5 of the members of the permenant security council held this view and were against the war.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The point is, most everyone in the US was onboard with this in the beginning (Dems & Reps). Now, like cowards, those making this an issue are pointing fingers and not supporting the decision that they themselves agreed with. It’s quite pitiful.

[rhino 0]

Quote

This was an abuse of their oath.

USMC

U

S igned the

M otherfucking

C ontract

Your ass belongs to Uncle Sam...

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

If I recall we found some shells full of gas? Some claim we supplied them.. lol

We found a lot of old knackered stuff buried in the dessert. Some of which we sold them. Bearing in mind chem./bio. Stuff has a very short shelf life even when stored correctly I would have to wonder how viable anything was if we sold it to them – that stuff had to be 20 years old at least.

I remember seeing an argument on here about 10 or 11 rusted shells dug up somewhere. Hehehe – yeah, he could have deployed them in 45mins… and they would have been soooo effective.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Wendy, I understand and respect what you are saying. These dead Americans died because they gave their word and trust to uphold the American way of life. Honorable indeed.

However, their trust was abused and tossed aside. Because of their oath the commander in chief knew he could set off an order and they would follow. This was an abuse of their oath.

I took that oath and have served my part in this conflict. I have friends who are part of the dead and seriously wounded that were mentioned above. Speaking for myself and probably most in the military, I would absolutely do it again. No hesitation. This is a just and necessary cause. My trust was never abused. My Commander-in-chief made the right decision and I hope he can continue to do so.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Hindsight is always 20/20. The point is, most everyone in the US was onboard with this in the beginning (Dems & Reps). Now, like cowards, those making this an issue are pointing fingers and not supporting the decision that they themselves agreed with. It’s quite pitiful.

If I remember correctly, half the country was against the war in polls released in March of 2003 (as was a good portion of the world). I know I was against and spoke out against it. I also claimed that the rhetoric handed out was not enough to convince me. There was no proof to convince me that 1000 Americans needed to die, or even just one needed to die.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[pajarito 0]

Quote

If I remember correctly, half the country was against the war in polls released in March of 2003 (as was a good portion of the world). I know I was against and spoke out against it. I also claimed that the rhetoric handed out was not enough to convince me. There was no proof to convince me that 1000 Americans needed to die, or even just one needed to die.

John Kerry was all for it.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Colin Powell was one of the proponents of "containment is working" not long before the war.

Colin Powell isn’t the President.

Quote

The problem is that it was not 12 years of a hardened attitude inspections. Softly implemented non-agressive inspections were implemented for many years.

Who’s fault is that?

Quote

However only once the US were there with their military did the inspections start to work. By implication then it would have been possible for the inspections to continue for a further 12 months and acheive their objective - unfortunately the US administration misjudged how quickly, cleanly and decisively they would win and thought that war would be the "cheaper" alternative - or maybe they just wanted to fight regardless of what was the right thing to do. They were warned and it is not hindsight being perfect as 3 out of 5 of the members of the permenant security council held this view and were against the war.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The point is, most everyone in the US was onboard with this in the beginning (Dems & Reps). Now, like cowards, those making this an issue are pointing fingers and not supporting the decision that they themselves agreed with. It’s quite pitiful.

I don't recall any Democrats voting to ask the UNMOVIC inspectors to leave in spring of 2003, or voting to go to war before the inspectors had finished their job.

That was a (stupid) foreign policy decision of Bush and his cronies alone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I took that oath and have served my part in this conflict. I have friends who are part of the dead and seriously wounded that were mentioned above. Speaking for myself and probably most in the military, I would absolutely do it again. No hesitation. This is a just and necessary cause. My trust was never abused. My Commander-in-chief made the right decision and I hope he can continue to do so.

And what correct decision was that?

You are one of the few troops I have heard in the last week alone that thought it was a good thing. I've said it plenty of times - I see about 15 former military people a week looking for education, most of them are just returning from Iraq. ALL of them have been against Bush's choice and thought it was a mistake. I even had a lifer that quit the service just 4 years from retirement because of how unjust he thought the war in Iraq was and he refused to lead any more Americans to their death for the wrong reasons.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

If I remember correctly, half the country was against the war in polls released in March of 2003 (as was a good portion of the world). I know I was against and spoke out against it. I also claimed that the rhetoric handed out was not enough to convince me. There was no proof to convince me that 1000 Americans needed to die, or even just one needed to die.

John Kerry was all for it.

Once again - you think I voted for Kerry? Nope. But I will vote for him in this election without a question in my mind he will be better than Bush, if only just by a little.

I'm surprised you didn't say "He voted for it before he voted against it."

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[nigel99 616]

Quote

Hindsight is always 20/20. The point is, most everyone in the US was onboard with this in the beginning (Dems & Reps). Now, like cowards, those making this an issue are pointing fingers and not supporting the decision that they themselves agreed with. It’s quite pitiful.

I think you missed my point - I am saying that it was NOT hindsight as the MAJORITY of the security council was against war - BEFORE and not AFTER the fact.

As to who's fault the softer attitude towards weapons - heck probably everyone who holds a high political office in all 5 countries that make up the permanent security council for a start - but now with the benefit of hindsight it was actually working

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[rhino 0]

Quote

There was no proof to convince me that 1000 Americans needed to die, or even just one needed to die.

300 Americans die a month from alcohol related incidents... Why do you not criticize that?

Rhino

[pajarito 0]

Quote

There was no proof to convince me that 1000 Americans needed to die, or even just one needed to die.

Only if you believe that international terrorism isn't a threat to us. After the laundry list of terrorist attacks that have transpired around the globe in recent past. I'm not trying to focus simply on 9-11. That's just the worst in the US to date and what got our attention.

[rhino 0]

Quote

ALL of them have been against Bush's choice and thought it was a mistake.

You are full of shit...

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

If I remember correctly, half the country was against the war in polls released in March of 2003 (as was a good portion of the world). I know I was against and spoke out against it. I also claimed that the rhetoric handed out was not enough to convince me. There was no proof to convince me that 1000 Americans needed to die, or even just one needed to die.

John Kerry was all for it.

No matter how many times you guys say that, it still doesn't make it true.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

There was no proof to convince me that 1000 Americans needed to die, or even just one needed to die.

300 Americans die a month from alcohol related incidents... Why do you not criticize that?

Rhino

I do.

As someone that has been hit by a drunk driver and has an injury that will never heal because of it, this is a very personal issue for me. In fact, this injury is keeping me out of the air yet again.

I do what I can in that area, and I donate to cancer research as well as a dozen or so other charities.

What is your point again?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Colin Powell was one of the proponents of "containment is working" not long before the war.

Colin Powell isn’t the President.

Quote

The problem is that it was not 12 years of a hardened attitude inspections. Softly implemented non-agressive inspections were implemented for many years.

Who’s fault is that?

Quote

However only once the US were there with their military did the inspections start to work. By implication then it would have been possible for the inspections to continue for a further 12 months and acheive their objective - unfortunately the US administration misjudged how quickly, cleanly and decisively they would win and thought that war would be the "cheaper" alternative - or maybe they just wanted to fight regardless of what was the right thing to do. They were warned and it is not hindsight being perfect as 3 out of 5 of the members of the permenant security council held this view and were against the war.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The point is, most everyone in the US was onboard with this in the beginning (Dems & Reps). Now, like cowards, those making this an issue are pointing fingers and not supporting the decision that they themselves agreed with. It’s quite pitiful.

Most everyone in the US was NOT on board. You just talk to people that think like you.

Here is what some of us were saying before the war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhino 0]

Quote

What is your point again?

If you missed it you won't ever get it...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I'm surprised you didn't say "He voted for it before he voted against it."

Didn't have to. You did. Good luck with your choice of persons with character and backbone for your Commander-in-chief.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

ALL of them have been against Bush's choice and thought it was a mistake.

You are full of shit...

Nope, I ask each one of them their opinion on it. Part of sales is personalizing and getting to know them. I ask every one of them, and every one of them has said they are voting for Kerry.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....