The timing of when they disappeared is not the point. The point is they did disappear and this administration either did not know or did not want it to come out because they took their eye off the ball. If it happened before the invasion, we didn't see it? Strange. Knowing a little about military intelligence, I know that all targets would have been under surveillance 24-7 during the leadup. The bottom line is the administration has no clue.
The point on the missing weapons is this.
- Thread starter Clem D
- Start date
The point is.. If Kerry were president Sadam would still have ALL of those weapons he is worried about.
But there are no WMD so whats the big deal?
Kerry needs to make up his friggen mind!
But there are no WMD so whats the big deal?
Kerry needs to make up his friggen mind!
The bottom line is either:
1. We didn't get their soon enough.
2. We need to W/D from the UN because of corruption.
You are an idiot to blame the administration for this. You blame them for "rushing to war" now blame them for not getting their soon enough. You blame them for not having intelligence to see this and fail to realize who dwindled the intelligence down to nothing.
You seem to think that everything should go perfectly for some reason. Then when something does not, you dream up a reason to blame Bush. It demonstrates no reason but rather using your political opinions to sway all sense of reason.
1. We didn't get their soon enough.
2. We need to W/D from the UN because of corruption.
You are an idiot to blame the administration for this. You blame them for "rushing to war" now blame them for not getting their soon enough. You blame them for not having intelligence to see this and fail to realize who dwindled the intelligence down to nothing.
You seem to think that everything should go perfectly for some reason. Then when something does not, you dream up a reason to blame Bush. It demonstrates no reason but rather using your political opinions to sway all sense of reason.
Clem D said:
How would this have happened with Kerry?
YOU TELL ME. What would his plan have been?
"Catch Bin Laden"?
LMAO....seems like you live in a dream world.
Mount a full scale assault on HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS square miles of mountainous terrain?
That seems to be the only way Kerry could have "caught Bin Ladin".
Once again, anything that fails to live up to your Utopian world is a failure. And your ideal candidate, Kerry, can take all your pain away.
Kerry has choked the last couple days with this weapons depot stuff. In my opinion he is only solidifying the desicion by Bush to invade Iraq.
I really think he should of stayed away from that one. But I guess its the 10th round and he needs a knockout punch. I really think he has good chance, but he needs to choose his battles more wisely.
I really think he should of stayed away from that one. But I guess its the 10th round and he needs a knockout punch. I really think he has good chance, but he needs to choose his battles more wisely.
What does W/D stand for?
And you are an idiot because yesterday you used the non word irregardless. That is scary from a future doctor.
And you are an idiot because yesterday you used the non word irregardless. That is scary from a future doctor.
I apologize to the great intellectual giant Clem D for using the word "irregardless".
Because I grew up in the Midwest I sometimes revert to local slang when I speak or write.
I know that for the elitists in this country this offends them and makes them want to hurl when they see the common man.
Again I apologize and will write in formal diction in all future posts.
Because I grew up in the Midwest I sometimes revert to local slang when I speak or write.
I know that for the elitists in this country this offends them and makes them want to hurl when they see the common man.
Again I apologize and will write in formal diction in all future posts.
You seem to blame Bush all the time Kosar but think its stupid to blame Clinton for anything?
Are you really that partisan?
Are you really that partisan?
dr. freeze said:
Gimme a break, Freeze. How in the fukc should Clinton get any blame for the explosives being stolen? Let's see: Bush starts an ill-advised war without any planning, without enough troops and with little or no world support. As a result, 700,000 lbs of explosives end up God knows where, and somehow it's Clintons fault?
Oh we are measuring it in lbs now---Try ounces # will be 16 times larger 
and here I thought inflation was under contol ;(
and here I thought inflation was under contol ;(
Let's put Clinton aside...Let's do a little reality check on Iraqi weapons. Saddam left about 1,000,000 tons of weapons when he ran to his spider hole. We have destroyed about 500,000 tons.
The 380 tons that are "missing" constitute 0.38% of the weapons Saddam had, and 0.76% of the weapons that coalition forces have already disposed of. Now, those figures don't represent one-third or three-fourths of Saddam's weapons, they constitute less than four-tenths of one percent and three-fourths of one percent of those weapons. In other words, a very very small amount.
So, we have two realities here. First, the amount of explosives we're talking about is small ... less than one coffee bean in a one pound bag. Second ... the only way George Bush could have secured these weapons was to step up his invasion plans and move in to Iraq before he did.
Is that what Kerry's suggesting he should have done? Because Kerry is blaming Bush for failing to "secure 380 tons of deadly explosives" that were already gone when the troops under Bush's command entered the country! On just what level does that make any sense?
The 380 tons that are "missing" constitute 0.38% of the weapons Saddam had, and 0.76% of the weapons that coalition forces have already disposed of. Now, those figures don't represent one-third or three-fourths of Saddam's weapons, they constitute less than four-tenths of one percent and three-fourths of one percent of those weapons. In other words, a very very small amount.
So, we have two realities here. First, the amount of explosives we're talking about is small ... less than one coffee bean in a one pound bag. Second ... the only way George Bush could have secured these weapons was to step up his invasion plans and move in to Iraq before he did.
Is that what Kerry's suggesting he should have done? Because Kerry is blaming Bush for failing to "secure 380 tons of deadly explosives" that were already gone when the troops under Bush's command entered the country! On just what level does that make any sense?
kosar said:
It's quite simple....
Clinton nor the UN showed ANY interest for eight years in relieving the Middle East of these weapons. The problem of late may have NEVER existed if some interest was shown in following thru on the resolutions.
I/O,
These weapons were stolen either right before we invaded (and after we told the inspectors to leave, lest they get blown up) or after we invaded. In other words, these weapons *were* under control, sealed and in tact before General Patton decided he wanted to invade somebody.
I guess you could actually thank Clinton and the UN for containing Saddam so effectively for 12 years. And you can blame Bush for turning that country into a clusterf*ck.
These weapons were stolen either right before we invaded (and after we told the inspectors to leave, lest they get blown up) or after we invaded. In other words, these weapons *were* under control, sealed and in tact before General Patton decided he wanted to invade somebody.
I guess you could actually thank Clinton and the UN for containing Saddam so effectively for 12 years. And you can blame Bush for turning that country into a clusterf*ck.
As I recall Clinton conducted a bombing war on Iraq at least once if not twice so don't pretend Clinton was not ddressing the Iraq problem.
As for catching UBL, perhaps Bush shouldn't have told the entire world he was going into Afghanistan weeks and weeks before he did and expect the scumbag wasn't going to be able to find a good hiding place.
As for catching UBL, perhaps Bush shouldn't have told the entire world he was going into Afghanistan weeks and weeks before he did and expect the scumbag wasn't going to be able to find a good hiding place.
How could the US be in charge of weapons that weren't even there when we arrived??? The weapons were gone before we got there. Now we know Russia helped Saddam move them into Syria because Russia didn't want blood on thier hands. Doesn't look good for Kerry does it? lol
:clap:
:clap:
Last edited:
CHARLESMANSON said:
Huh? The UN wasn't 'in charge' of any weapons. They were in charge of inspecting for weapons. They did that, and had them under seal and accounted for, until we told them they better leave. Then the weapons were stolen. Got it?
