For the purposes of Bush's re-election and (more importantly) causing embarassment and shame to the liberal class...

henceforth a "stockpile" will be any amount of shells greater than ONE (1).

Up late, Son of Nixon.

By the way, that 90's show wasn't the 1998 episode, which I watched, and which sucked. It turns out it was 1994. He was discussing Reality Bites.

As a rule, the following equation is known to always be true:

S = n + 1

where

S = the necessary number of weapons to become a stockpile, and

n = the number of weapons of mass destruction printed on page A19 of the Saturday edition of The New York Times

Oh, and the corollary to this is:

s + m + mwl + bm = 0

where

s = the number of sarin shells

m = the number of mustard gad shells

mwl = the number of mobile weapons labs

bm = the number of missle rocket motors banned by the UN and found in Iraq before the war and in other countries since

This is obviously true because Dan Rather types keep telling me no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

What number constitutes a "stockpile"?

I'm really glad you're asking this question, because no one else apparently is, and I think it's the most pertinent one in the whole WMD debate.

I first started asking people this after the first Sarin shell turned up. How much is enough? How much would it take for you to believe that Bush didn't lie to you?

I found This Reuters story from July 1st where the count is "16 or 17" plus the 2 from May...

Yeah, I heard on CNN last night that there were no WMD found in Iraq.

I mean, they might notice if the WMD were stuffed in Sandy Berger's pants. But then of course, the big question would be the suspicious timing.

Ace, this article seems to hover around what you're talking about. It only mentions minor weapons finds and suggests that Iraqi's and Duelfer think there's more out there.

Ace, this article seems to hover around what you're talking about. It only mentions minor weapons finds and suggests that Iraqi's and Duelfer think there's more out there.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/96776/1/.html

I'm pissed because Blair and Bush are both now saying "we may not find weapons of mass destruction" when we have. 35 chem/bio weapon shells/artillery rockets count as a WMD stockpile, as well as a germ warfare starter kit they found under some Iraqi's sink, as well as the nearly two tons of radioactive material that was removed from Iraq on 23 June. We've found the WMD, and though I'm not surprised the peacenik media hasn't reported it, I'm surprised George and Tony aren't saying "Hey, check this shit out. Didn't we tell you Saddam was hiding weapons?"

What constitutes a WMD stockpile? Well, if the items in question are found [page 22, bottom right, near the fold]lying side by side, or scattered about, or buried, then they aren't piled, are they? Sorry, no stockpile. Move along. Nothing to see. Moreover, Bush is caught in another lie[page 1][op-eds].
[/NYT mode off]

Yeah, rusted-out, empty shells from 1989 without any chemicals... oooh let's spend $200 billion dollars and kill 900 Americans.

nearly two tons of radioactive material

You mean the waste the US carted out after being pressured to because they completely failed to secure Tuwaitha in the first place? I would think that if they were so concerned with weapons they would at least have posted a platoon at the one fucking place there might have been weapons.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm

A "stockpile" is an infinite underground Chamber wherein there are large boxes and crates amongst thousands of other similar nondescript crates and the power of God burns off the labels He doesn't like and that have WMD inside mustachioed hippy-hippy shake dolls.

Also nuclear warheads hidden under concrete.

Also nuclear warheads hidden under concrete.

Reported by propaganda machines, so let's ask the new super-democratic, happy, fun regime's interior ministry:

Asked by Reuters about the report, a spokesman at the Interior Ministry said: "It's stupid."

However many they finally decide constitutes a stockpile, they'll still claim Saddam didn't know about the weapons so they somehow don't count. Until you find the stockpile in one of his palaces, Saddam will remain the victim here and the irony of that will be lost on the Left.

If you think I'm crazy, just look at how they defend Al-Qaeda associates in Iraq: Oh they were in an area Saddam doesn't control! That doesn't count!

Ignoring that he probably told them they could hang out there as long as they made trouble for the Kurds.

No, Disconnect, YOU are stupid. Come here and let me bitch slap you with the truth, dumbass: the reason for going to war was NOT to prove that Saddam had WMDs. The purposes for going to war were to enforce 11 fucking years of spurned U.N. resolutions and to establish a beachhead in the transformation of the Middle East. Now, either go back and actually READ the State of the Union speeches or go crawl in a hole and die, IDIOT.

"Yeah, rusted-out, empty shells from 1989 without any chemicals..."

What do you suppose happened to the chemicals that were in those rusted-out, empty shells? Or did Saddam just buy a bunch of shells for binary chemical weapons, hoping he'd get the chemicals for as a Ramadan present?

All the weapon findings you are talking about are what was of the old powerful regime before the Gulf War, after the Gulf War and suprise surgical air strikes by President Clinton, Iraq was only left with a piece of shit military, they no longer housed power or lost the power of creation of WMD, UN inspectors took over Tuwaitha which was in the gulf war a Nuclear Facility, but with clear intention of creating Radiological Devices(industrial, medical, and agricultural use) the 1.7 tons of uranium, is low-grade and could not have been used in the creation of Nuclear Weapons. The US Military upon invasion of Iraq kicked out the UN agency protecting the 1.7 tons of Uranium and in place did nothing, not a single thing to protect that site, some of the local populace went into the facility and stole containers the Uranium was held in and got sick, it is clear that was a US MILITARY failure.
The shells encountered by the polish troops were tested by US Central Command CENTCOM and the test reported NEGATIVE for any signs of biological Chemicals. Aaron dont you understand that those shells are merely there because Saddam produced them before the Gulf war but no longer has chemical weapons to place within them. Smack dont you understand The presidents reason for war may have been to dislodge a oppressive regime, but his main justification and means by which he instiled FEAR upon the US populace was that he claimed Saddam to be danger because of his WMD capabilities. SpoungeWorthy dont you understand chronological order, Alqaida entered Iraq after US Invasion in order to test themselves and train against US military and perhaps incite a revolution to gain power of Iraq, Osama Bin Laden wanted to kick Saddam out of power and establish his islamist fundamentalist government, Saddam is SECULAR he is not islamic and for that reason OBL hates him. Osama and Saddam have contradictory ideologys. If you are all looking for the greatest threat in the middle east just look at Iran it purues WMD production and is far more ahead than Saddam, is a oppresive oligarchy government, Funds terrorism as well as provides protection of terrorist within its borders.

"...dont you understand chronological order, Alqaida entered Iraq after US Invasion..."

No, Zarqawi was treated for his wounded leg before the U.S.-led invasion. The Jordanian government, which prevented a large-scale detonation of chemical weapons in Amman, found that al-Qaeda had been planning that attack since before the U.S.-led invasion.

"Osama and Saddam have contradictory ideologys."

Sort of like secular Saddam's ideology contradicts that of Hezbollah, contradicts that of Hamas, contradicts that of Palestinian suicide bombers?

"If you are all looking for the greatest threat in the middle east just look at Iran..."

That may be why it's next on the list.

^^^^ Read

And...
Don't you think that Bush would mention the shells, the 1.77 tons uranium or any of your misguided ideas of nukes buried in concrete if by any way it would prove that were actually WMDs? Maybe he just hasn't read the report yet?!?

Jake, the report came out this morning, came through a local Iraqi newspaper, and has yet to be officially confirmed.

Note that nothing in my comment relied expressly on the purported discovery of nukes, only on a) evidence of pre-invasion al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, b) pointing out a logical flaw, and c) An observation that Iran is next on the list.

Like everyone else here, I'm waiting to see where, if anywhere, the nuke story goes. Possibly somewhere, possibly nowhere. I'd rather not commit myself to a position before getting some solid facts. It's a lesson many would do well to learn.

Dunno. If I was Karl Rove, and I had proof Bush was right about WMDs in Iraq, I'd be saving it up for October, and chortling with glee whenever the media and Kerry's campaign painted themself into the 'Iraq had no WMDs' corner.

Smack dont you understand The presidents reason for war may have been to dislodge a oppressive regime, but his main justification and means by which he instiled FEAR upon the US populace was that he claimed Saddam to be danger because of his WMD capabilities.

No, it wasn't. His justification was the continued dishonesty, untrustworthyness, and defiance of the U.N. GO READ THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECHES. There is absolutely ZIP in there about Saddam being ready to kill us all. What you WILL find is an emphasis on Saddam's continued efforts to purchase Uranium, his association with terrorist groups, his animosity, and his dishonesty over the past 11 years. There is plenty about acting BEFORE Saddam has the opportunity to become an imminent threat.

There has been this concerted effort on the Left to lie and to twist what the President said into some implication of an immediate life-or-death situation for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. This is BULLSHIT and I'm not going to let you get by with it.

Saddam is SECULAR he is not islamic and for that reason OBL hates him. Osama and Saddam have contradictory ideologys.

1. Saddam IS a Muslim and a pan-Arab nationalist.
2. They have a common enemy.
3. There's PLENTY of evidence that they had a connection.
4. Saddam had close ties to various other terrorist networks in the region and had a chip on his shoulder. Should he have been able to acquire enough weapons grade material to sell, it WOULD have made its way to our shores. Guaranteed.
5. Iraq's and Syria's Baath party was an Arab supremacist organization with designs on unifying the Middle East under a single government.

If you are all looking for the greatest threat in the middle east just look at Iran it purues WMD production and is far more ahead than Saddam, is a oppresive oligarchy government, Funds terrorism as well as provides protection of terrorist within its borders.

I completely agree. I hope you agree with me that they should be taken out A.S.A.P., whether foreign governments or domestic politicians oppose it or not.

It looks like the nuke story is a dud.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm

I'm a little disappointed, but glad that I didn't rush to judgment on this one.

In order for it to be a 'stockpile'...

1. It must be in a large warehouse, the warehouse clearly marked as 'WMD Storage Facility' in Arabic, French, Russian, German, and English.

2. There must be at least 6000 neatly stacked munitions clearly labeled as 'WMD' in Arabic, French, Russian, German, and English.

3. Saddam must make an appearence on Late Night with David Letterman, admitting ownership of the 'alleged' WMD. He must also state, for the record, that France, Germany, and Russia had nothing to do with it. In addition, he must sing a duet with Paul Shaffer, 'Just the Two Of Us'.

4. The 'alleged' corpes of at least 30,000 US servicemen and women must be shipped to Tehran for independant confirmation of potential WMD exposure. The Iranians will have 10-15 years to publish their results.

5. Ted Kennedy must set his beer down long enough to read the Iranian report.

6. The UN must admit that they are incompetent boobs, and really wanted Saddam to win so the French could afford to finish construction on their new elderly-free beach homes.

7. Monkeys must fly out of the butts of the following people; Kofi Annan, Chirac & Putin, Tiny Tim, Capt. Kangaroo, and the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir of 1978.
------
Only when these seven conditions are met will the UN consider forming a review panel to discuss the viability of drafting a Security Council brief, and the brief must br drafted by someone related to Kofi Annan.
------

I asked the same question here on July 3rd...of course the whole world was on vacation! I question my timing...

"Is there anywhere in the blogosphere where the Left clearly defines what WMDs are, what they look like, how many people can be killed by them before they enter the "mass" category, how much room a WMD takes up, etc.? I would think just 2 such warheards constitute the plural definition. Are they expecting a whole hangar, 100 yards long, filled with huge, menacing-looking steel tubes of death?

Let's calculate how much room the sarin-filled warheads take up, cuz we get our shorts in a twist over "suitcase" bombs, fer cryin' out loud! Go hide two suitcases in California and challenge the whole damn world to find them...."

JoA - totally agree.

Rumsfeld has been saying all along that a soda can filled with one of these substances is enough to kill thousands, if released into the air with simple explosives.

But forget about that. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that it comes in something the size of an oil drum, and that the oil drum has a big yellow "WMD" painted on it.

Now let's pretend that Saddam has 50 of these drums left over from the Gulf War (you know, the other 5% that weren't verified). This would be enough, if smuggled into the U.S. in a shipping container, to kill millions in an urban area.

Now Saddam is shrewd, so he comes up with a plan to hide the drums in the desert. He gives 50 seperate lieutenants in the Fedayeen a handheld GPS, a jeep, and a drum of WMD, and instructs them to drive out into the desert - not too far - and bury the drum in the sand wherever they want. He gives them instructions on how to mark the position with the GPS so that the drum can be found easily. He promises them each $100,000 for the mission.

When all of the leutenants return, the coordinates are transfered to a single manifest and stored in a secure location in Tikrit, known only to Saddam and his top officials. The Fedayeen are then led into a courtyard and executed.

How difficult would it be to find these weapons, if you didn't have the GPS coordinates? Near impossible.

Am I a lunitic for coming up with this scenario? I don't think so. I own a handheld GPS. I've driven a jeep offroad, and I know how to use a shovel.

It would be fucking easy.

Is it possible that something like this happened? Probable even?

Yet the left continues to try to prove a negative, asserting with total confidence that Saddam didn't have any WMD. The best any of us can do is make an educated guess, and as Bush has said, when faced with a decision over protecting the U.S. and trusting a madman, he'll protect the U.S. every time.

Aaron,

"No, Zarqawi was treated for his wounded leg before the U.S.-led invasion. The Jordanian government, which prevented a large-scale detonation of chemical weapons in Amman, found that al-Qaeda had been planning that attack since before the U.S.-led invasion."

Zarqawi is Alqaeda thanks for making that point Alqaeda, not Baathist, Alqaeda.

Sort of like secular Saddam's ideology contradicts that of Hezbollah, contradicts that of Hamas, contradicts that of Palestinian suicide bombers?

Hamas and Hezbollah, neither of them share the ideology of Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden is interested in the creation of pan-islamic state run by a caliphate, he wants to take over and convert everone and revert to fundamental Islamic law, hamas is moderate muslim compared to OBL, if you read Alqaeda manuals such found in apartments of spainiard bombers, they state that Apostates(such as Saddam, Saudis, Iran, Arafat, and other non believers in "Sharia" islamic law should be overthrown and killed..OBL ideology reverts to very radical and coservative view of islamic religion. not in tune with Hamas and Hezbollah, as for Iran being next on the list that is impossible because of Bush the Military is pretty much spent, Iran should have been #1. We cannot enter another war militarily or economicly, we are far more suceptable now than before entering this war.

"because of Bush the Military is pretty much spent"

Because of Bush, huh? If the military is spent, it doesn't have anything to do with the butt-raping of the defense budget that happened during the Clinton years at all?????

Daniel,

I think we all accept your points on the differences between al Qaeda, Saddam, Hamas, etc. What we're saying is that all of these groups, although idealogically different, share several things in common:

1. They are all Muslim
2. They are all violent
3. They all hate America

These groups have obviously gotten comfortable with the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept, and now constitute a unified threat to the U.S. If you still have doubts, check out this bin Laden tape (read the whole thing):

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/10/binladen.tape/

"...as for Iran being next on the list that is impossible because of Bush the Military is pretty much spent, Iran should have been #1."

I stated elsewhere on this blog that I don't think we can get enough boots on the ground to make a land-based invasion wise. So I partially agree with you, although I also agree with Brian B, who points out that it was eight years of Clinton that reduced our military's size and strength.

But a boots-on-the-ground invasion is not the only option. We can also consider actively fomenting revolution (e.g. by supplying the revolutionaries with weapons, training, information). We can use air strikes to a) sink every Iranian naval asset, b) blow up key resupply bases, and c) take out all suspected nuclear facilities. In this scenario, Americans don't actually cross into Iranian territory - we just make sure Iran can't leave. This latter idea will probably go hand in hand with the revolution-fomenting.

It's not a perfect solution. After all, we can't know for certain whether we've nailed every nuclear target. If the revolution doesn't materialize, Iran can simply rebuild and attack later. But if nothing else, we will have bought ourselves a substantial amount of time.

And yes, Zarqawi was al-Qaeda, not a Baathist, which means Osama bin Laden doesn't seem to mind having his top guys hanging out in Iraq.

Longshanks, yes They are Muslim, violent, hate america, and also hate each other their "friendliness" is limited because they hate each other, OBL isnt giving a helping hand to Saddam by allowing for its cells to remain in Iraq, no, he wants to further his own agenda. They are battling against a common foe, yet not necesarily together.

Aaron, remember the past, we supplemented Saddam with weapons, the Taliban, and what became of them? before giving anyone revolutionary support we must first evaluate what social problems we may face in the future, actual support from the populace for these revolutionaries, alot has to weighted out before we just hand anyone against Oligarchy in Iran a weapon. You have also proposed precision bombing by US, did you know Clinton also proposed and carried out precision bombing of Iraq on possible weapons facilities and overall infrastructure in the country. Those bombing had no result and did not stir the people to revolt against Saddam. why couldnt we have taken that strategy in the War in Iraq? there is no reason we shouldnt have? it is alot easier for that scenario you described to occur in Iraq, than in Iran. as for Osama not minding leaving Zaquawi in Iraq, remember OBL thought that 9-11 attacks would lead US into war, and after extensive casualities came to US they would leave, with severely damaging whichever leader they attacked, he would have easier job of displacing them. the plan did not establich itself, but the movement of Alqaeda operatives to other arab states could have been halted if US used greater force in Afghanistan. i believe in the war against Afghanistan and the Taliban, yet i dont believe Iraq was the best choice, or certaintly justified correctly, even now Prime Minister Karzai needs more support because Warlords have gained far too much power, reason being lack of US involvement in Afghanistan.

Daniel: Aaron, remember the past, we supplemented Saddam with weapons, the Taliban, and what became of them?

Actually, we supplied neither Saddam nor the Taliban with weapons. This is why Saddam's armory was almost exclusively French, Russian and Chinese, during his two wars with America. The Taliban wasn't in existence when we supplied the Afghan mujahideen to help them wear down Soviet troops. The Pakistani-sponsored Taliban came to power by killing or pushing into exile the decimated ranks of the mujahideen.

Longshanks, yes They are Muslim, violent, hate america, and also hate each other their "friendliness" is limited because they hate each other, OBL isnt giving a helping hand to Saddam by allowing for its cells to remain in Iraq, no, he wants to further his own agenda. They are battling against a common foe, yet not necesarily together.

All. It. Takes. Is. A. Sale. When an Israeli Tel goes up in a mushroom cloud or thousands of Americans die in a VX attack, nobody's going to be worrying about whether Al Qaeda and Saddam were on close enough terms to hop in the sack together and enjoy some guilty pleasures. President Bush did the RIGHT thing by taking this guy out before he did something we would all regret.

Aaron, remember the past, we supplemented Saddam with weapons, the Taliban, and what became of them? before giving anyone revolutionary support we must first evaluate what social problems we may face in the future

Nope. There's no possible way we can know the future in enough detail. We just have to choose the best allies we have at the moment and worry about tomorrow when it comes.

but the movement of Alqaeda operatives to other arab states could have been halted if US used greater force in Afghanistan.

We had PLENTY of force in Afghanistan. What we didn't have was timely information. And that's a fault that belongs to the Left. The obsession with electronic intelligence and the overreactions and misdirected "solutions" to CIA abuses led to that problem.

i believe in the war against Afghanistan and the Taliban, yet i dont believe Iraq was the best choice, or certaintly justified correctly

You're wrong on both counts but you'll never be convinced. The blinders you wear block out far too much.

even now Prime Minister Karzai needs more support because Warlords have gained far too much power, reason being lack of US involvement in Afghanistan.

We ARE still involved in Afghanistan. It just doesn't get any press.

This is not a war against Al Qaeda, it's a war against radical Islam and the cesspool that is the Middle East. Afghanistan was step 1 in the makeover of the region. Iraq is step 2. It's just warming up and it's going to be going on for a long, long time.

Daniel: Osama Bin Laden wanted to kick Saddam out of power and establish his islamist fundamentalist government, Saddam is SECULAR he is not islamic and for that reason OBL hates him. Osama and Saddam have contradictory ideologys.

But in the mean time, they had a common goal - getting Uncle Sam out of their hair. The US was not Communist during WWII and the Soviet Union was not capitalist. But they put aside their differences for four long years before parting ways after the Axis powers were defeated.

Could Saddam or bin Laden have made a separate peace with the US like the Soviets made a separate peace with the Nazis (before the Nazis turned on them)? Certainly - but neither of them chose to play. Saddam could have stayed in power just like Gaddafi by permitting inspectors into Iraq. Bin Laden could have confined his religious wars to Muslim countries, and one domino after another would have fallen. But no - both of them chose to confront Uncle Sam, and both are paying the price.

Actually, we supplied neither Saddam nor the Taliban with weapons.

Hmmmm.... really.... because it would appear at least to federal records that we supplied Saddam with ... I don't know.... oh, Anthrax. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm. Sure Saddam said it was for medical purpouses but we didn't car because we were supporting him in the Iraq Iran conflict.

Nope. There's no possible way we can know the future in enough detail. We just have to choose the best allies we have at the moment and worry about tomorrow when it comes.

I would comment on this but if you truly believe that than I think it speaks for itself.

Zhang Fei, We gave financial and weapons support to Saddam during his fight against the Shah in Iran that was the Iran-Iraq war, we clearly chose to back Saddam, before the creation of Ayatollah in Iran. heres another link you should read:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm

!!So thats how Saddams biological capabilities came around, two decades ago we aided in the further creation of Saddams biological weapons programs, perhaps unknowingly we provided Anthrax, West Nile Virus, and Botulism.

as for Providing Taliban, Kashmiri fundamentalist mujahideen were given support via a CIA and state sponsored terrorism from PAKISTAN, after the afghani-Russo war, they had assimilated and still used weaponry provided to them by the US, Taliban came and integrated many of the Mujahideen fighters, and killing those who had not. Osama Bin Laden funded Taliban push for power in Afghanistan and The Mujahideen Forces. we did in a way provide weapons to the remnants forces which became the Taliban

But Jake, isn't it true that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction? How can it be that we supplied him with biological weapons, then?

I wish the left would get its story straight.

Smack all I ask is what do you suppouse we do after we invade all the countries on your "hit-list". Do you really believe that if we occupy these countries and keep "hunting" down terrorists that the conflict will ever stop?
One of the reasons Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq was because there was no clear exit strategy (it was in autobiography, maybe his son should have read it and took some notes). All this does is allows our soldiers to be the targets of terrorist attacks, no maybe this will create a safe buffer for us in America. And i hope you can sleep well at night that people are out there dying for you.

No... I didn't say that Iraq had WMDs. I said that we gave him the calpablity for him to make said weapons in his Biological Warfare department. He definetly had biological weapons that he used in the Gulf War and against the Kurds, but apparently our whole view point that he continued to make those weapons is just FALSE. Unless of course Saddam decided it was extremely important to hide these weapons just so that when we overthrew him, it would make Bush wrong about them. What would be more important to Saddam: keeping his power as dictator or trying to show the world that Bush was wrong about his WMDs?

Smack:"This is not a war against Al Qaeda, it's a war against radical Islam and the cesspool that is the Middle East. Afghanistan was step 1 in the makeover of the region. Iraq is step 2. It's just warming up and it's going to be going on for a long, long time."

I had no idea Saddam was a radical islamic...and i had no idea Alqaeda wasnt a radical islamic group...lol wow...just....wow...

Smack:"We ARE still involved in Afghanistan. It just doesn't get any press"

The only troops within Afghanistan are those that are hunting Alqeada and Taliban forces, we are not there as much as we are needed, Karzai needs US military as a occupational force to fill power vacumm that Warlords are currently trying to fill.

Smack:"All. It. Takes. Is. A. Sale. When an Israeli Tel goes up in a mushroom cloud or thousands of Americans die in a VX attack, nobody's going to be worrying about whether Al Qaeda and Saddam were on close enough terms to hop in the sack together and enjoy some guilty pleasures. President Bush did the RIGHT thing by taking this guy out before he did something we would all regret."

Why have you caused a shit storm about how Military failed to secure Tuwaitha which housed 1.7 tons of Uranium which was previously under supervision and control of a agency of the UN, prior to the invasion of Iraq the US knew about this Uranium and that the UN force guarding had to leave it, yet they failed to provide ANY security and the Uranium. which was stolen by the local populace , that now hows cnacer and is sick. Terrorist could have gotten their hands on radioactive materials without paying for it, why dont you complain about that.??

Regarding the WMD: perhaps, instead of looking at WMD from a "numbers" point of view, they should be viewed through "monitary eyes". Remember the 2 ounces of anthrax? Estimated cost of cleanup was (if i recall correctly) $24 million. So, the shells found: how much, if they were deployed and used against civilian populations, would it cost in cleanup alone? THAT seems to me to be a truer picture of 'stockpile'.

Ewww. Since when did Ace of Spades turn into a hangout for lefty trolls?

Don't you know that if Saddam had any WMD's he would have used them. So none of these shells can be considered WMD. And there you have it.

America armed Saddam:

http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/bureau/000113.html

Keep the link handy.

Regards,
Ric Locke

OK, here's a little reminder for all the lefties out there howling about Saddam's weapons.

1) Saddam had them. How do we know? Look for point number..
2) Saddam used them against both Iran and the Kurds. In order to USE weapons, you must first POSSESS said weapons. This is what we on the Right like to call LOGIC. Try it out some time.
3) We have NO PROOF that Saddam got rid of his weapons. None. Zip, zilch, nada. Unless one of your leftists would like to explain where Saddam's stockpiles went to? No? I didn't think so.

And as for those who try to claim that Saddam couldn't threaten us, ARE YOU F**KING HIGH? It doesn't take an army to dump a gallon of blister agent into a water resevior! It doesn't take an advanced air force to dust an urban area with antrax or botulinium. It doesn't take tanks to spread sarin gas. All it takes is one person. One. 1. Singlular. One.

Can you tell me where Saddam's weapons went? Can you personally guarantee that a genocidal madman who hates the USA with every fiber of his being isn't going to dump WMD somewhere in the USA? Can you say that America is so well protected that we're able to stop a single man intent on crossing the border with a briefcase full of bio-weapons?

I don't think so. It's about time you people on the Left woke up to the fact that we're not dealing with regular warfare. We're dealing with people who happily kill themselves to kill us, and they'll do whatever they can to cause the largest amount of damage, inluding dumping bio-weapons into water supplies, spreading chem-weapons in a city, or setting off a dirty bomb in a major urban area. The fact that you choose to simply ignore those facts simply prove that you choose to remain ignorant and stupid. That's up to you, but get the hell out of the way for those of us who are trying to prevent the murder of more Americans,.

Daniel: Hmmmm.... really.... because it would appear at least to federal records that we supplied Saddam with ... I don't know.... oh, Anthrax. iraq-ushelp_x.htm. Sure Saddam said it was for medical purpouses but we didn't car because we were supporting him in the Iraq Iran conflict.

This is the Associated Press putting its anti-American slant on events. What they don't mention is that smallpox and anthrax viruses were handed over to many Third World countries around the globe for research purposes. The garbage being peddled around is anachronistic (typical of how the left lies, by leaving out context, rather than saying black is white) - back then the US had ended its bio-warfare research in 1972, and it was thought that only really advanced countries could come up with effective biological warfare agents. US virus stocks were held by the CDC for vaccine research purposes, not for researching biowarfare agents. It's interesting that as usual, KKK Democrat Robert Byrd finds a way to stick it to Uncle Sam, regardless of the facts.

***"No... I didn't say that Iraq had WMDs. I said that we gave him the calpablity for him to make said weapons..."

That is a logical fallacy. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I also love the way these lefties on here were OH SO QUICK to jump on the words of the Iraqi official calling the nuke story "stupid". Granted, he was right in this case, but they should know better than to trust an "illegitimate puppet regime". lol

Daniel said: "The only troops within Afghanistan are those that are hunting Alqeada and Taliban forces, we are not there as much as we are needed, Karzai needs US military as a occupational force to fill power vacumm that Warlords are currently trying to fill."

To understand Afghanistan, you must first be aware of her topography, which mainly consists of cavernous valleys surrounded by towering mountains, the latter of which make up about 75% (!) of the country. The country itself is landlocked, though it does possess a few waterways [only one of which can be used by large vessels]. There are no clear routes into the mountains and the few roads that exist extend for short distances and/or are narrow paths (used by smugglers). I'll get to why all this important in a bit.

The key however are the mountains itself. The mountains of Afghanistan have saved her people time and time again throughout the centuries, from the time of Alexander to the Russian occupation, and now they even save the Taliban remnants by providing them with refuge. But the price of this benefit is steep. The mountains of Afghanistan may have saved her people during times of war...

But they are also what kills her people in times of peace.

Because of her mountains, her people are isolated from one another, and because of that isolation they share little kindred with the rest of their countrymen. She is a nation in name only, her residents placing their loyalties with their tribes, considering themselves Pashtoon, Tajik, Uzbek, etc; not Afghan.

Even during the time of the Taliban, whom [forcibly] controlled about 95% of the country, many tribes had rules forbidding inter-tribal marriage and even from doing business with one another. Because of the US ouster of the Taliban, do you think that they'd -- out of the blue -- be willing to submit their authority to some central government? Of course the warlords are going to attempt to fill the post-Taliban vacuum; they want their territorial control prior to the takeover by the Taliban government. The only thing "US intervention" can do is keep them from each other's throats. We cannot make the tribes trust one another, we cannot make them work with one another, and we cannot make them place their authority with a far-away central government. Even the Taliban couldn't make them do that [aside from the latter, because of extreme force].

Because of her mountains, there is just a small percentage of arable soil. This of course leads to fighting among tribes to obtain the pitiful amount of available farmland. If they can survive that, then the have to deal with reoccuring floods and droughts, which then lead to famine.

Getting back to what I mentioned earlier, the topography of Afghanistan makes the supplying of our forces a logistical nightmare. Because of the lack of roads, supplies to our forces in the remote areas usually must be delivered by air, which further adds to the logistical burden. Also, take a good look at Afhanistan's surrounding nations; we aren't exactly talking about the most stable governments here. Because its landlocked we have to resort to assistance from the surrounding countries, and if one of their governments collapses and we lose their airfields/airspace/roads, then the supplying of our forces in country could be put in serious jeapordy. Because of all this [and more], we cannot place a large force [on the level of Iraq for example] within Afghanistan. Can we add about 10,000-20,000 or so more troops? Yeah, it would help, but it isn't necessarily going to solve Afghanistan's problems.

What she needs is the answer everyone hates to hear because we have so little control over it; the answer being "time". Her wounds run deep, and no US wand is going to make them go away; her people need to work their differences out on their own. We're talking about decades here [and not one or two, but more like 4 or 5+]. All we can do is continue to provide assistance.

Anyway I apologize for the long post [to describe all Afghanistan's problems it would take multiple pages, so I "tried" to be brief]its just that many people don't really understand Afghanistan and they feel like if they just dump more troops or give out more money, the problems will just go away [not really their fault for thinking that way, the media does an atrocious job of providing our public with context].

On a side note, great site!

50 comments, lots of trolls, still no definition from the Left for WMDs. Give us a number. Nor's post doesn't count, cuz he's not a troll for the Radical Left. He's just funny as hell.

No long posts are necessary. Just give us a number of potential "kills" it will take to say that a particular entity is a WMD. Is that so hard?

Well here is the definition to stockpile by dictionary.com

stockpile
n.
A supply stored for future use, usually carefully accrued and maintained.

Well the truth is that we have found very little evidence for either of the two parts of the defintion. Just ask CENTCOM. (So do you guys do not trust our Army central anymore?). I personally believe that Saddam probably has some left over chemical weapons but I doubt that he has much of success of gaining more biological and chemical weapons since the Gulf War. Especially since we have imposed sanctions on destroying them and whenever Saddam was feeling like being a bully to the UN we would use surgical air strikes. As Tony Zinni helps to explain as the former leader of CENTCOM with the help of Tom Clancy in the book Battle Ready, that were definite reasons for doing some serious surgical air strikes but what was the reason for invading? Apparently all our proof that Saddam was able to have stockpiles, meaning to really increase and mantain his weapons is probably wrong. In fact that opposite could be said since we are finding only remnants of what he had during the Gulf War. So if I find that there was a significant increase past what he had during the Gulf War I will consider that we found a stockpile.

But now let me ask you guys a question because i'm confused by it just as much as you are about the word stockpile. What was our reason to go to war? I mean because it seems like it is constatnly changing. Before the war started it seemed to be about the threat of his WMDs. There was also some threat of a strong connection between Iraq and Al you know who. Now it seems like we are just content that we went to war because Saddam was a bad man. I cannot refute that Saddam was a terrible man. I just want to know if the 'real' reason we went to war was to overthrow him? Because for a long time we didn't want to fight him because we knew that if we liberated Iraq and made it a "democracy" that there government would be highly influenced by Shiites, since the majority of them are Shiite. Why did we worry about this? Because lets face it we don't want two major countries that we depend on for oil to be highly influenced by a religion (Iraq and Iran). Now I'm sure you are all thinking that I'm some leftie that is paranoid of oil conspiracies, but I'm not as much as I just wanted to inform you that in some ways our oil is more secure in the hands of a ruthless dictator than Shiite people. Or at least our government thought so.

Cpl.Menno and what type of assistance is that which we are providing?, hunting Alqaeda operatives, sure thats gonna help the Afghan populace....right. As for you stating that a US presence not solving its problems...no it wont...but it would sure help a whole lot if a occupational force retained peace within the country, even without combining and integrating the tribes.

Cpl.Menno:"Because of the lack of roads, supplies to our forces in the remote areas usually must be delivered by air, which further adds to the logistical burden"

What a great idea,why not build them the Fucken Roads.

Cpl.Menno, reading your post you state the problems of uniting these clans under a centralized government, there are many different forms of centralized government which can be executed, for instance a republic in which tribes do not lose individuality yet are unified diplomatically, i do not believe afgahnistan can be governed by a "president" yet if it were subjected to US Occupation, organization will be imposed upon those warlords. Series of changes leading to a unity or atleast peaceful diplomacy for the tribes of Afghanistan is a slow progression, should have been center of attention.
Raging Dave the Right Lacks Intelligence and in that way is ignorant of its failed logic.
There is evidence of Saddam giving up his WMD...Who would of though..perhaps someone who bothered not to be ignorant...Tuwaitha Facility is a prime example the Radiological Devices, which are used in agriculture, medical, and industrial uses, were given up, eventhough they served a purpose, as well ass 1.7 tons of Low-enrished uranium, not weapons grade plutonium, but uranium which used in the creation of such radiological devices, this was after the gulf war.. how many facilitys have we found in this war of Iraq, that house biological chemicals and devices which culture and create such chemicals?...huh...ur right! none. that is both evidence that Saddam gave up possible WMDS and did not pursue the creation of further WMDs.
Raging Dave you simply fail to set apart both Saddam and Alqaeda, how many terrorist plots has Saddam done targeting US...none. how about Alqaeda umm lets see USS Cole, 9-11, huge amount of Embassy bombings, Spainish RailTrain, has countless cells operating around the world, you talk about the security and safety of the US and your simply barking up the wrong tree.

The definition of "stockpile" does not matter, because the sarin shells are not weapons of mass destruction. I know this because the public editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution told me that "I wouldn't characterize that discovery as anything close to finding WMD" when I asked why there was no news article in his paper about the, at the time, 12 shells that had been discovered.

I examed this question here (http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/878780).

Since the shells were not WMD, I was forced to conclude that the sarin shells were designed to get rid of those tenacious camel spiders in Iraq.

Ace & commenters:

I need a transcript of this Duelfer claim. Did you hear this yourself Ace? If anyone has a way to document this, please email me:

jsb@earthdome.com

Yes, I heard it from Duelfer himself (via FoxNews).

All I can suggest is to search again on the FoxNews website. Maybe they've gotten around to putting up a print report by now.

Ace - surprised you're not chiming in on this one. This is one of the longest threads since the Paul Anka haiku contest...

To Jake and others who want to know WHY?? (as though any answer other than the cherished one will suffice) Just Google the SOTU Address. The case against Saddam Hussein is presented by GWB, at great length. And BY THE WAY, THE WORD "STOCKPILE" is found nowhere in the SOTU.

Look, just read the damn thing!!!! Pretend it's your stock portfolio and you have some vested interest in your future!!! If you can't/won't read it, THEN DON'T VOTE ON THE STOCK OPTIONS!!

I love it--Saddam was secular so bin Laden hated him and would never truck with his likes. But of course we secular Americans armed the mujhadeen--they didn't seem to mind that. Who says we can't have it both ways?

And just because Saddam had a Koran transcribed in his own blood and Allah Akbar added to the Iraqi flag, well, that just means he was going through the motions, right? No way he was sucking up to the jihaddis, right?

Joan, have you ever heard about what the Senate Intelligence Committee said...That the intelligence presented was wrong. Although it also found that GWB wasnt responsible for manipulating this evidence, he sure did use it for justifying the War in Iraq and in the SOTU address his accusations are also based upon those faulty intelligence reports. GWB Doesnt feel bad for going to war on faulty information, thats the price for staying firm. Joan you post shows me how ignorant you are.

Ace - surprised you're not chiming in on this one. This is one of the longest threads since the Paul Anka haiku contest...

Why get in the way of a big discussion?

But actually, as I warned, I haven't had the time recently to keep up with the blog. I've been able to write some posts, but I haven't been able to read many comments.

A "stockpile" is an infinite underground Chamber wherein there are large boxes and crates amongst thousands of other similar nondescript crates and the power of God burns off the labels He doesn't like and that have WMD inside mustachioed hippy-hippy shake dolls.

SarahW, I swear I wrote my Lost Ark piece before reading your post.

You'll just have to trust me on that.

SpongeWorthy, Mujahideen were indeed supplied by the CIA, i suggest you go by your nearest bookstore and buy Charlie Wilson's War By George Crille, As for stating that Saddam had the koran writen in his blood and allah akbar in the flag, i do not know wheter that is true. If it were true that wouldnt mean he believed in the ideology of Osama Bin Laden, Alqaeda, Taliban, and other fundametalist islamic groups, for their is distinction among this religion, as i stated before in this thread OBL believes in "Sharia" interpretation of islam, which leads him to want to establish a pan-islamic state run by a Caliphate, under islamic "Sharia" law, which is by far the most conservative interpretation of islam. Saudis are much more moderate in their interpretation, as is Yassar Arafat, and other Middle Eastern Governments not run in "sharia" law fashion but with existance of islam within their governments. Spoungeworthy i suggest you research islam more extensively before posting.

Osama hates Saddam as much as he does the Saudis he regardes them both as Apostates, Saddam does not support pan-islamic combine, Saudi Royals do not support it eaither and OBL blames them for letting infidels near their holy cities.

Saudis are much more moderate in their interpretation

A great many Saudis, including a lot of the royal family ARE WAHHABBISTS, you FRICKING NERK! YOU don't know what YOU are talking about!

Saddam doesn't have to hold the exact same view of Islamic domination to be a threat or to sell weapons to terrorists. And, by the way, he DID have Allah Akbar placed on the Iraqi flag, he DID believe in building a unified Arabic state, he DID support Palestinian terrorists (who certainly DID consult freely with Al Qaeda themselves), he DID seek Uranium in Niger, he DID continue to seek weapons programs, he DID want to strike America, and he WAS a threat. So go sod off.

Smack, geez ur a ignorant fuck OBL hates the Saudis for rejecting his aid of mujahideen forces to protect them from Iraq, Saudis opted for US to protect them, Saudis do not practice "sharia" law which is the most Radical, Fundametal interpretation of Islamic law u dumbshit.

Saddam did not believe in creation of pan-islamic state, he believed in the creation of Baathist state as did Syria Baathist Regime, Dumbass

So because he sent money to families of dead suicide bombers ment that he is linked with Alqaeda???...ummm no

So wheres the Uranium from Niger now.....not in Saddams possesion

Wheres the evidence he continued to search for production of chemical agents? he hasnt, the weapons u dispute finding are fucken pre-gulf war production, those found by polish troops tested negative for any biological chemicals as stated by CENTCOM US Central Command.

Where is the evidence that Saddam had planned was planing to strike us?, you must be confused, you must be talkig about AlQaeda. u know the same Alqaeda responsible for 9-11, USS Cole, Spanish Rail Car bombing, Embassy bombings, and kidnappings of americans on foreign soil.

Saddam a threat....his threat was not significant enough to launch a land invasion, why didnt as Aaron suggested do stratigical Airstikes without having out boots on their soil huh, provided kurds with military and financial support to have them fight the war, or descimated their infrastructure in order to collapse their control locally.. i mean Aaron said that was his idea of what should be done in IRAN, which is far more of a threat than Iraq.

So, let me get this straight. All you ranting lunatics think Iraq was a mistake, but you'd have no problem smacking down Iran?

Well, shoot, so long as we're all in agreement on at least one thing, I say we act on it. Doesn't matter now whether you think they should have been first or not, so long as we do agree that those guys come next.

So do th rest of us a favor and vote for Bush, because I can pretty much promise Kerry's going back to the Carter heyday as far as diplomacy goes...

-BF

THe Left = Bush is both guilty of disobeying the UNO/World Community BY OBEYING IT, or is Dubya and the USA guilty of OBEYING THE UNO BY DISOBEYING IT; as well as DISOBEYING THE UNO/World Community by DISOBEYING IT, ala NOT Tolerating Franco-German-Russia-Chicom-..., et al., i.e. WORLD SOCIALISM's, UNSC anti-American televised critical rantings, plus getting that magical "one more UN Resolution" to add to the many others already directly or indirectly authorizing military force! AMERICA MUST "TOLERATE" EACH, ANY, AND ALL CASUALTY-HEAVY
DOMESTIC TERROR ATTACKS, AT LEAST WHEN A REPUBLICAN POTUS IS IN POWER, BUT THEN DO NOTHING, OR ELSE DO NOTHING WO THE CONSENT OR NEW CONSENT OF THE, SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, ALREADY CONFEDERATIST UNO, where GLOBAL FEDERALISM/INTEGRATION is NOT = GLOBAL CONFEDERATION BUT IS = CONFEDERATION = ANTI-FEDERALISM/INTEGRATION!? GIVEN THE LEFT AND LEFTMEDIAS MILITANT, POLITICALLY CORRECT PROTECTION = DENIAL =............. OF COMMUNIST-ANTI-AMERICAN BILLARY, and despite Bill's Communists-for-Fascism/Republicanism/
Rightism/Federalism...etc. post-2000 [anti-Democrat] disavowal of any personal, professional, or ideological responsibility for the prosperous '90's, the "no one is to blame" 9-11 final report is probably the best Dubya and the GOP can expect! For the Failed Left, now the power-manic ANGRY "Help Me Save Myself But I STill Get To Kill You Later" LEFT, aka the "The Right Shouldve Known Better Than To Trust Me, Ergo Everything Is STILL The Right's Fault" Left, CONFEDERATION/CONFEDERATISM = akin to LOCAL STATE AUTONOMY, NOT FULL SOVEREIGNTY OR INDEPENDENCE, ERGO GLOBAL CONFEDERATION = GLOBAL FEDERALISM/INTEGRATION BUT NOT = GLOBAL FEDERALISM/INTEGRATION [HAHAHAHAAAH....@]!?

Iraq, shouldn't have been attacked at all, Iran would be the greater threat, yet we havent paid enough attention to afghanistan in the first place, we should have finished their before, possibly moving on into Iran, and i say possibly, because perhaps a round of surgical strikes on infrastructure in Iran, would suffice. Iraq certaintly didnt warrant a ground invasion, occupation. I dont agree with the domestic policy President Bush wants to continue, as well as foreign policy he has committed us to. a vote for him is certaintly a vote wasted, he shouldnt even be president at this instance.

Daniel said: "Cpl.Menno and what type of assistance is that which we are providing?, hunting Alqaeda operatives, sure thats gonna help the Afghan populace....right. As for you stating that a US presence not solving its problems...no it wont...but it would sure help a whole lot if a occupational force retained peace within the country, even without combining and integrating the tribes."

You must have poor vision. Let me state this again...AFGHANISTAN IS A LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE. You CANNOT support a force sufficient enough to hold the thousands of hamlets and villages located throughout the country. Are you going to occupy the country [and not to mention, the mountains] with a force of 30+ thousand? In your dreams kid. Since we cannot hold most of the ground [aside from the major locales], we have to go after THEM. The Taliban remnants still wield some influence within the country, so yes, it does benefit them that we go after them. As for not providing them with "assistance", try saying that when you see men and women weeping because they won't have to bury loved ones this year due to famine, because US Engineers helped clear out their neglected irrigation canals. We do a lot of good work there, and of course we can do more, but don't shit all over the people that have been busting their humps trying to get that country out of the medieval ages.

Daniel said: "What a great idea,why not build them the Fucken Roads."

You really can't be this dense, can you? First and foremost, they ARE building roads. For example, the Kabul-to-Kandahar road and the Salang tunnel, which will connect Kabul to some of the northern areas. You aren't going to interconnect an entire country in two years. Reconstruction progress is related to the security situation, which is why the more populated areas are getting priority.

Daniel: "reading your post you state the problems of uniting these clans under a centralized government, there are many different forms of centralized government which can be executed, for instance a republic in which tribes do not lose individuality yet are unified diplomatically, i do not believe afgahnistan can be governed by a "president" yet if it were subjected to US Occupation, organization will be imposed upon those warlords. Series of changes leading to a unity or atleast peaceful diplomacy for the tribes of Afghanistan is a slow progression, should have been center of attention."

That all may sound nice and reasonable in the world of academia, but try getting that to work in a multi-ethnic third-world country. You want to impose occupation [even if we could somehow magically supply such a large force] on the country and use the threat of force to make them comply? Good luck trying that on people who wear their pride on their sleeves. Unless you want to be like the Taliban and hack off the limbs of all dissenters?

- Daniel said: "Iraq shouldn't have been attacked at all, Iran would be the greater threat, yet we havent paid enough attention to afghanistan in the first place, we should have finished their before, possibly moving on into Iran, and i say possibly." -

Let's forget about your stupid comment that we should have finished in Afghanistan first [sure, let's just ask Islamic fundamentalists to wait several decades until we finish our job there] And anyway just how would you "possibly" invade Iran? Afghanistan cannot be an efficient staging point for an invasion, since you could not supply the heavy forces that would be needed. To "possibly" invade Iran, you'd need Iraq. Well what do you know! We're in Iraq now! And because we're in Iraq, we can "possibly" threaten Iran with the threat of force, a leverage we did not have previously. Welcome to the world of realpolitik.

- Daniel said: "possibly moving on into Iran, and i say possibly, because perhaps a round of surgical strikes on infrastructure in Iran, would suffice." -

Clinton tried that several times with Iraq, and that got us nowhere, and didn't even make a serious dent in his regime. And these people call Bush a buffoon?

A critical look on War on Terror(ism) & Afghanistan footage:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4847.htm

A blemish and an outrage for the Army of the USA and the ENTIRE international community.

OBL hates the Saudis

Please try to get this through your thick head: there is no monolithic entity called "the Saudis." The royal family and the general population of Saudi Arabia are split between Wahhabbists and pro-Westerners. The house of Saud has been in power for the past century because they cut a deal with Wahhabbists. Many members of the royal family contribute to phony Islamic charities that funnel money into Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Saudis do not practice "sharia" law which is the most Radical, Fundametal interpretation of Islamic law u dumbshit.

Yes, I know that. There are still Saudis who support Al Qaeda with money and logistical support. "u dumbshit." By the way, while we're riding that horse, it's "you." OK? Please introduce yourself to the English language.

Saddam did not believe in creation of pan-islamic state

I never said he did. The Baathists are Arab nationalists.

So because he sent money to families of dead suicide bombers ment that he is linked with Alqaeda?

No, it means he's a supporter of Islamic terrorists who hate America and our allies.

So wheres the Uranium from Niger now.....not in Saddams possesion

I never said it was. One of President Bush's planks in the case for war was the Saddam sought to purchase Uranium--but not that he was successful. The attempt to purchase Uranium indicates intent. When a man like Saddam attempts to purchase Uranium, he should not be left alone.

Wheres the evidence he continued to search for production of chemical agents?

Oh, I don't know--perhaps all the Iraqi documents ordering research and development?

Where is the evidence that Saddam had planned was planing to strike us?

He repeatedly said that he wanted to harm us. He also longed to be admired by other Arabs by being the one to accomplish a blow against the hated Westerners. He supported anti-Israeli and anti-American terrorist organizations. If we had not moved, biological, chemical, or nuclear materials would have made their way to Israel and America. Europe as well, most likely.

you must be confused, you must be talkig about AlQaeda.

We have more than one enemy, you fool. Not all Islamic terrorists are members of Al Qaeda. Besides, Al Qaeda DID have connections with Iraq directly. As well as having connections with Hezbollah and Sudan in common with Iraq.

Saddam a threat....his threat was not significant enough to launch a land invasion

I'll let the CIA and national security establishment be the judge of that. Somehow, I think they're more qualified than an illiterate wanker sputtering mindless twaddle on a blog.

why didnt as Aaron suggested do stratigical Airstikes

Because there was no way to remove the regime with that approach.

i mean Aaron said that was his idea of what should be done in IRAN, which is far more of a threat than Iraq.

I know the first three letters of Iraq and Iran are the same, but the situations are different. Nevertheless, I don't think surgical strikes are going to be effective in Iran either. The Iranian regime has distributed their nuclear research and production facilities. And the resistance is neither large enough nor strong enough to succeed.

My recommendation about airstrikes, as you may or may not have noticed, was intended to a) buy us some time to recover from the Clintonization of the military, and b) possibly cause a popular revolt. It was never intended as a stand-alone stategy for victory.

Wanna know why? Because we BOMBED THE CRAP OUT OF IRAQ continuously from the end of Gulf War I to the beginning of Gulf War II, and at no point in time did that get us one step closer to anything like victory there. Our bombing served the salutary function of keeping Saddam's movements something like restricted, and in all that time he didn't even once invade Kuwait. But we never made any real progress. It was a delay tactic, and nothing more.

I'm nervous about U.S. boots on Iranian soil right now, because I'd rather not stretch our troops thinner than need be. But bombs will give us the time we need to get some more boots ready to hit Iranian soil.

Smack, get it throught your small skull that "u" was a simple mistake i made when writing, wow cause a shit storm over that one dumbfuck.

"The house of Saud has been in power for the past century because they cut a deal with Wahhabbists. Many members of the royal family contribute to phony Islamic charities that funnel money into Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."

Really, you dont say, perhaps you should tell that to the President which clearly has no intention of labeling Royal family as part of Axis of evil, continues to deal with them, perhaps because our dependency on their oil.

"Oh, I don't know--perhaps all the Iraqi documents ordering research and development?"

care to show me those.......perhaps they are dated as far back as pre-guld war time, huh? and if those are correct where are the facilities that begun that production? we surely could have found them by now.

"He repeatedly said that he wanted to harm us"

I want to harm you, oh that must mean i really will huh?..so how many times has he harmed us? how many terrorist plots has he taken against US?

"I'll let the CIA and national security establishment be the judge of that. Somehow, I think they're more qualified than an illiterate wanker sputtering mindless twaddle on a blog."

Oh really and the Senate Commision reporting the failure of CIA intelligence had in Iraq, doesnt come into your mind at all?? doesnt that seem mindless of you. Haha.

Aaron,

" buy us some time to recover from the Clintonization of the military"

President Bush has lowered the time for people to become specialized and ready for active duty, for example Special forces now only require 2 years to be considered fully trained, Bush is simply trying to pump the military with inproperly trained personnel in contrast with prior forces. we sure will recover from clinton era, with less experience and less properly trained troops to handle combat, smells like vietnam.

Cpl.Menno and Aaron(similar post)

"Clinton tried that several times with Iraq, and that got us nowhere, and didn't even make a serious dent in his regime. And these people call Bush a buffoon?"

Well i suggest reading the account of the head of CENTCOM, Tony Zinni, for the extensive damage we served Baathist Regime with Surgical Strikes in Clintons time. Aaron our surgical strikes did little to target individual troop movements of Saddam, it was mainly subject to Baathist Infrastructure.

"But bombs will give us the time we need to get some more boots ready to hit Iranian soil."

How about the funding? perhaps another round of deficit spending, let the further generations pay for Bushes mismanagement? another failure of the right, taking the future into acccount. i can clearly see there is no chance of ending this argument but i may return to argue a some more on this post

Daniel said: "Well i suggest reading the account of the head of CENTCOM, Tony Zinni, for the extensive damage we served Baathist Regime with Surgical Strikes in Clintons time."

I don't have to read anything, because all I have to do is look at the results. "Extensive damage" on paper doesn't always equate to the actual results. Did he lose his hold on power? Nope. Did it make him compliant with the many UN resolutions? Nope. Did it stop him from firing at our aircraft patrolling the No-Fly zones? Nope. Did it stop him from being defiant? Nope. So all we managed to do is damage buildings and his "infrastructure", with nothing to show for it except him coming out of it unscathed, improving his image within the Arab world for standing up to the superpower United States.

Funny about how we "gave Saddaam weapons".
When we "gave" them, they were weapons. When we found what he did with them, they were insecticide.
That dual-use technology sure is useful, isn't it?

Cpl. Menno,

"Extensive damage" on paper doesn't always equate to the actual results. Did he lose his hold on power? Nope"

if you hadnt noticed the objective of those airstrikes was not to take him out of power, they were to disrupt his power.

"Did it make him compliant with the many UN resolutions? Nope"

he sure allowed Inspectors back in after that shit, although i am not sure how many resolutions he complied with after that. i also want to state the hypocrisy of the U.S. we want Saddam to adhere to UN resolutions, yet we DONT??.

". Did it stop him from firing at our aircraft patrolling the No-Fly zones"

Can you give me a count on how many pilots were downed because of their "firing".....oh, none...ok
can you give me a count of how many U-2 missions were flown into Iraq, violating UN resolutions by the US, Resolutions your are so adamant about Saddam adhering to.

", improving his image within the Arab world for standing up to the superpower United States."

he perhaps reinforced his image with those which already believed in him but, it didnt create a uproar in arab world for standing up to the US.

- Daniel said: "if you hadnt noticed the objective of those airstrikes was not to take him out of power, they were to disrupt his power." -

"Disrupt his power"? Well, perhaps you didn't notice, but it accomplished few major long-term strategic objectives. If they would have accomplished their long-term goals instead of just "holding him in check", we wouldn't have had to undertake Operation Iraqi Freedom. You don't "disrupt his power" just for the sake of disrupting it. The distruption [especially with the expense involved] should have some tangible long-term effect on the overall strategic situation. What do Operations Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Phoenix Scorpion, Desert Strike, Desert Thunder, Desert Fox, and Southern Focus all have in common? They were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with either 1) UN Security Council resolutions and UNSCOM inspections or 2) established No-Fly Zones, and the firing upon coalition aircraft or 3) the mobilization of Iraqi military forces into prohibited areas or 4) a combination of all the above.

So what did Hussein do in response to these operations? He let the inspectors in, pretended to comply and then threw them out, while firing on coalition aircraft and probing the US to see what we'd respond to; basically starting the process all over again. Perhaps it made sense to you to spend millions of dollars on military operations each year on a continual problem to "disrupt" it, without keeping it in check or concluding it, in a pre-9/11 world. But these solutions will NOT work when dealing with Iran, because in the case of Iran we aren't trying to check their military aspirations.

It's like the bombing of a few terrorist training camps in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. They were just rebuilt later in another location, without a major effect on the organization.

- Daniel said: "Can you give me a count on how many pilots were downed because of their "firing".....oh, none...ok" -

The point wasn't whether or not aircraft were hit. The point was that even with all the military operations we conducted, Hussein continually remained defiant, and in several cases just re-doubled his efforts. I believe during the period of 1998-2001 there were over a thousand separate incidents of Iraqi SAM and anti-aircraft artillery fire directed against US/UK planes; and don't forget the 140,000+ sorties conducted since the end of Gulf I. Would you say insurgent "firing" on US forces in Iraq didn't matter, just because no one died that particular day? The problem isn't necessarily whether or not someone was hit or died, the problem is that they're firing on you in the first place. The latter is what you need to correct, and half-hearted attacks on military targets and infrastructure doesn't do it.

- Daniel said: "can you give me a count of how many U-2 missions were flown into Iraq, violating UN resolutions by the US, Resolutions your are so adamant about Saddam adhering to." -

Where was I adamant that Hussein should comply with UN resolutions? I just stated one of the cases of war against him [and on a side-note, UN resolutions aren't worth the toilet paper they're printed on]. I didn't even state that I supported the Iraq war [I do, but for different reasons than President Bush's]. The only reason why I replied to your comments in this thread is because your proposed "solutions" to our problems are unfeasible, plain stupid, or have just as many gaping holes as the courses of action already taken or underway, and likely moreso.

- Daniel said: "he perhaps reinforced his image with those which already believed in him but, it didnt create a uproar in arab world for standing up to the US." -

I didn't say it caused an uproar, I just said it improved his image. It's evident by the response of the "Arab street" after the fall of his regime and his later capture; they were all very dissapointed by the fact that how someone so defiant towards the US could go down without a fight.

"each year on a continual problem to "disrupt" it, without keeping it in check or concluding it, in a pre-9/11 world"

check what conclude what, the non-existing chemical weapons programs, and nuclear facilities....

"But these solutions will NOT work when dealing with Iran, because in the case of Iran we aren't trying to check their military aspirations"

really i didnt know chemical weapons and nuclear power was not a military aspiration...

"Where was I adamant that Hussein should comply with UN resolutions? I just stated one of the cases of war against him [and on a side-note, UN resolutions aren't worth the toilet paper they're printed on]. "

if they are not worth anything, then why cite them in the first place!!

"I didn't say it caused an uproar, I just said it improved his image. It's evident by the response of the "Arab street""

exactly, what i said the only response was from those who already supported him.

in previous post you stated we cannot employ a force in afghanistan all over mountains "Since we cannot hold most of the ground [aside from the major locales], we have to go after THEM."

those Major locales are all those which we have to hold, that is where the warlords seek to establish their power, we can continue hunt taliban as you stated, their is no need to inhabit every fucken mountain. but the major locales are the sites of tribal warring.

- Daniel said: "check what conclude what, the non-existing chemical weapons programs, and nuclear facilities...." -

For example, his developments of rockets outside the mandated maximum range capability. These and several other very minor programs were still in progress. But again you're missing the point because of your lack of reading comprehension. If you'd had read carefully, you'd notice the reasons for "keeping him in check" weren't just the suspected WMD programs, but his violation of UN inspections [by continually throwing them out and not being forthcoming on his admitted WMD capabilities], the violation of No-Fly zones and the firing of coalition aircraft on virtually every sortie, and the mobilization of his military into areas he wasn't allowed to move them to.

- "really i didnt know chemical weapons and nuclear power was not a military aspiration..." -

They absolutely can be, but that's not what WE are concerned with. We're far more fearful of a TERRORIST [Re: NOT military] operation with these weapons. We aren't necessarily worried [at least yet] about Iran invading a neighboring country launching chemical/nuclear munitions; we're worried about them possibly giving one of these nukes [if they're developed] to terrorist organizations within the country for use against us at home.

- "if they are not worth anything, then why cite them in the first place!!" -

I said I was merely stating the cases for war against Iraq; not MY reasons, and I did say I didn't agree with President's reasons. President Bush did make an issue out of Iraq's disobedience of UN resolutions, did he not? Can you read?

- "exactly, what i said the only response was from those who already supported him." -

Which is much of the Middle East outside of Iraq. And it isn't "exactly" since you didn't dissprove of anything, you thought I meant it would cause -- in your words -- an "uproar".

- "those Major locales are all those which we have to hold, that is where the warlords seek to establish their power, we can continue hunt taliban as you stated, their is no need to inhabit every fucken mountain. but the major locales are the sites of tribal warring." -

You're twisting what I said, so let me repeat this again. You CANNOT hold every location, there are thousands of villages, hamlets, and towns; its simply a matter of logistics. We DO however have forces at most of the major locales. And yet there are still problems within the country, is there not? The reason why I brought up the mountains is not to inhabit them, and this aspect must have flew way over your head, but it's that our enemy will continually harrass villages from their mountain refuges. We cannot stay in one location forever; once we leave they just come down, and the village switches allegiance [because of the threat of force]. So all the work we did in that location/province will have been for naught.

I'm assuming by "major" you mean populated? And what makes you think that the more populated locations are where these warlords wish to consolidate their power? That's actually boneheaded, seeing that a large contingent of NATO forces are in Kabul and the more populated areas. Secondly, the "major" locations aren't the only areas with tribal warring; the remote areas have plenty of that also.

"the "major" locations aren't the only areas with tribal warring; the remote areas have plenty of that also"

SO WHY DONT WE HOlD THE AREAS WHICH HAVE THE GREATEST TRIBAL WARRING YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT....

"Which is much of the Middle East outside of Iraq. And it isn't "exactly" since you didn't dissprove of anything, you thought I meant it would cause -- in your words -- an "uproar".

Well if didnt really accomplish anything you shouldnt have said it, you truly have a problem with issuing statements which have no meaning

" said I was merely stating the cases for war against Iraq; not MY reasons, and I did say I didn't agree with President's reasons. President Bush did make an issue out of Iraq's disobedience of UN resolutions, did he not? Can you read?"

Again if their not your reasons dont state them. period.

"by continually throwing them out and not being forthcoming on his admitted WMD capabilities"

well now we know dont we, that Saddam has not retained WMD capabilities.

"For example, his developments of rockets outside the mandated maximum range capability."
.....and those developments are a case for his WMD capabilities?

"we're worried about them possibly giving one of these nukes [if they're developed] to terrorist organizations within the country for use against us at home."

Do you know how noticeable Uranium refinement would be? Saddam doesnt have Plutonium (weapon grade material) how does he create nuclear devices in the first place? alll those worries about his WMD capabilities falling into hands of Terrorist groups is unfounded especially when those WMD capabilitie do not exist....

- Daniel said: "SO WHY DONT WE HOlD THE AREAS WHICH HAVE THE GREATEST TRIBAL WARRING YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT...." -

WE ARE, YOU FUCKING MORON. Repeat...YOU CANNOT HOLD EVERY LOCATION. When you hold one location, tribal militias will sometimes clash in another, and vice versa. So stop being an armchair "strategist", because you have no clue about the types of problems that have to be dealt with. Have you even been to the country you asswipe? Or are you talking out of your ass, because you read it from some article? I'm betting on the latter, seeing how little you know about the country. Here, since you believe everything you read, read about how NATO forces are trying to quell tribal militias in and around Kabul: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040727/ap_on_re_as/afghan_election This is one of the problems that must be dealt with politically, unless you want a civil war to break out. Well who cares how many Afghans die, right? As long as YOU get your ideal political system?

- Daniel: "Well if didnt really accomplish anything you shouldnt have said it, you truly have a problem with issuing statements which have no meaning" -

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about? English isn't your first language, right? Did it not increase his prestige in the Arab world, outside of Iraq? You bet your white ass it did. The only "statements" that have no meaning are your own.

- Daniel: "Again if their not your reasons dont state them. period." -

So if we're discussing the war in Iraq, I can't bring up the presidents reasons for the war because they aren't "my" reasons? Are you really this fucking stupid? You are, period.

- Daniel: "well now we know dont we, that Saddam has not retained WMD capabilities." -

Yes, NOW we know. But that didn't excuse Hussein for continually throwing inspectors out of the country. You know, if police have a search warrant for your home, and you don't let them in or restrict them for searching in areas they're supposed to, you bet your ass they're going to come in by force. Common sense must be something you're lacking.

- Daniel: ".....and those developments are a case for his WMD capabilities?" -

My statement was in reference to his UN violations. But David Kay also found minor WMD-related programs and items. If a pedophile on probation violates his probation, no matter how minor the infraction, his ass is thrown back in jail. When a megolomaniac dictator violates his "probation" [multiple times spanning a decade], no matter how minor, HIS ass should be taken down also.

- Daniel: "Do you know how noticeable Uranium refinement would be? Saddam doesnt have Plutonium (weapon grade material) how does he create nuclear devices in the first place? alll those worries about his WMD capabilities falling into hands of Terrorist groups is unfounded especially when those WMD capabilitie do not exist...." -

Proving you lack reading comprehension, you would have noticed that the response was about IRAN, not IRAQ. LEARN TO FUCKING COMPREHEND.

CPL.Menno
"WE ARE, YOU FUCKING MORON. Repeat...YOU CANNOT HOLD EVERY LOCATION."

You stated previously i believe that the tribal warring mostly occurs in the areas which house the greatest resources, so you have to concentrate on the sources of MAJOR CLASHES!!! i didnt fucken say we had to cover every fucken location, when you ask me to learn to comprehend, first take a look at yourself.

And it would be helpful if the links you post worked.

"So if we're discussing the war in Iraq, I can't bring up the presidents reasons for the war because they aren't "my" reasons? Are you really this fucking stupid? You are, period."

No, you are really that fucken stupid, do you know the defenition of context? you claimed the UN resoultions as reason for the war, yet then you state the resolutions arent worth shit. Im not asking you to only use "your" reasons but to use reasons which you believe are best suited for your argument.

"You know, if police have a search warrant for your home, and you don't let them in or restrict them for searching in areas they're supposed to, you bet your ass they're going to come in by force. Common sense must be something you're lacking."

Have you failed to notice that Invading a country is far greater in magnitude than forcing your way because of violated search warrant. there are many others ways to make Saddam compliant. far sightedness and intelligence is what you lack.

"But David Kay also found minor WMD-related programs and items"

really perhaps you should read Transcript of what David Kay said to the Senate Commission. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
and when you say WMD related programs and items you are probably hinting to Radiological devices they found which have radioactive content, but are used in medical, agricultural, and indrustial areas. (some after being found were put to use)

"If a pedophile on probation violates his probation, no matter how minor the infraction, his ass is thrown back in jail. When a megolomaniac dictator violates his "probation" [multiple times spanning a decade], no matter how minor, HIS ass should be taken down also."

Shit that would mean we would also have to incarcerate Kim Jong Ill, The Saudi Royals, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI, and many others. You have just said that minor infractions should have major reprocussions...how easy do you think enforcing that would be? we cant take that stance everytime and we made a bad choice in taking that stance with Hussein, it should have been reserved for a greater situation.

"Proving you lack reading comprehension, you would have noticed that the response was about IRAN, not IRAQ. LEARN TO FUCKING COMPREHEND."

Really with a response like this "we're worried about them possibly giving one of these nukes [if they're developed] to terrorist organizations within the country for use against us at home." anyone can really retain from that quote that you were speaking about Iran not Iraq......when you decide to change the subject you should also make a point of declaring the new subject. LEARN TO COMPREHEND CORRECTLY.

hardcore anal redhead big tits big tits tgp hentai big tits first anal big tits babes interracial teen sex anal sex clip big tits movie teen anal movie anal fuck free interracial sex pic gigantic titsinterracial hardcore big dicks big tits cum on huge tits big tits .com big tits boob large titsdogfart interracial interracial anal sex free anal sex huge fucking tits big cock anal sex interracial mature sex free interracial sex story anal cum shot interracial comic anal sex picture interracial facial interracial sex site extreme anal sex big old tits interracial sex video huge teen titss big tits wife amazing anal free anal sex movie first time anal sex anal sex story hard anal big tits cum asian teen anal anal whore anal fissures interracial swingers huge ebony tits anal dildo anal sex picture double anal sex free interracial porn big tits hound blonde with huge tits big latin tits interracial cartoon free interracial mpeg

Free Spyware Remover

Really cool blog! What you say makes total sense! Keep up the good work.

condemedlockingprotect

abundantdelightfulfilm

cheekswaswrithed

http://hosting.company-si.com/team/ backside ciliatorturouslyvibrating

http://morphine.pills4order.com coffeegasolinerestored

http://ritalin.twinstatesnetwork.org/pill/ budgetlickingroll

http://look.hollywoodtheater.org/ipuclajg/ beganironrare

http://debtloan.m-moore.org/5brwfldx/ fistheaterstiniest

http://www.indww.com/YOUR-VIEWS/messages/1861.shtml robertslicedsoiled

http://freak.quesaudade.net/ttyn/diaryland.html nostalgiaraisedstirrings