<img src=http://www.sleazydream.com/banners/yard/027.jpg>

Veiled ad-hominem attacks are uncalled for. Let's not turn this into anything personal.

Realize the area around Tikrit and Baghdad are huge areas. Ten years is a long time to be able to move things. Do you are I know anything personally about the size of these weapons of mass destruction? Would they be any bigger than the hundreds of millions of dollars we recently found in the walls of various buildings that we had no idea about? Can they be loaded up in a truck and carted to wherever? Do we know the contents of every truck coming and going to and from the aforementioned areas?

Your criticism of what I say is based on certain assumptions that I do not necessarily agree with.

And the very scary thing is that if Bush & Co. are not called on the carpet for this, it does set a precedent for not only the United States but any country to attack anyone PERCEIVED to be an enemy capable of inflicting harm.

But in that scenario, one could say ANY testube is potentially a WMD as almost anything "nasty" could be developed in it!

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

Infantry.

Isn't that another name for cannon fodder?

To those who say: "Ok, maybe there were no WMDs and no threat to the U.S. directly, but at least we got rid of Saddam, so I'm glad we invaded Iraq"..in others words "Alls well that ends well."

Warfare in Iraq is far from over. The United States is acting like "We're supposed to do something with this country now that we conquered it?" Ambushes, protests, and bitter tension exists between the people of Iraq & the troops/U.S.

The number of troops in Iraq are INCREASING, not decreasing. That's because the troops have now become policemen. But even with the current number, that country is no where close to being security stable for its people.

And are the people of Iraq better off than before? In many ways they are not. 80% of the citizenry are unemployed. Many of those that are employed haven't been paid in 3 months. The conditions are ripe for disease and hunger throughout the country.

If you think Iraq is better off now than before (and I'm not arguing that Saddam was a good despot), look at how "well" Afghanistan is doing 1 1/2 years after the war there.
Warlords effectively control all of the country save Kabul. And even in Kabul, no one in the govt dares go out unless under heavy guard with armor.
Health and education is still desperately lacking throughout the country.
And this is one of the most telling stats:Since the war ended, not ONE MILE of new road has been paved or repaired since we bombed the crap out of everything.

We're in for a very long stay in Iraq. A very long & bloody stay.

Had a typo to edit.

1441 was the last one...but there were also several prior to that.

i'd like to see a picture of theKing in his uniform many moons ago, in the 82nd airborne...

maybe he could post one for us.

I bet i could find it again with a 2 minute google search...non-photoshopped to change the name on the badge.

where were you based? show us some proof. I heard Bushs' intel puts you in the 82nd...lol.

LOL, we knew you can't read, you didn't have to prove it.
Read it again and tell me which code they used to give the US the go-ahead to invade Iraq, because unfortunately I'm not as high up as you on the intel ladder. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

"Finally, it warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution."

The US provided the "serious consequenses".

Do a fucking search...I will not rehash something that has been repeated many times. In the meantime. :321GFY

I found one:
http://www.mule.cobaltweb.com/pf.jpg

I am amused.

Good hit Mule!

Precedent? Take a look at the list of hundreds of wars fought in the past two hundred years and tell me what the general precedent is already. What was the cause of the India/Pakistan, China/Tibet, Czechoslavakia/Russia, Iran/Iraq, France/Lebanon, USA/Panama, or hundreds of other major international or minor tribal conflicts in the world?

I have news for you. Every war was started by someone who from their point-of-view had a legitimate reason and most were started for reasons no better than the Iraq/US one. Your really think there is something new going on here?

Frankly I'm not that concerned about the other countries. It's the United States, as a citizen that I'm most concerned about.

I'm not willing to give Bush & co. a blank check to go to war whenever THEY decide a potential threat exists.

It's why we call this a DEMOCRACY!

It's a Republic. You vote for your leaders and they decide when and for what reasons to go to war or not. It's never been different except that more of the population can vote for their representatives than ever before. Then, unless the US was attacked, the other party complains about it. Republicans complained about Clinton bombing Iraq and Kosovo. Democrats complained about Iraq.

It's a very old political ritual and it's not going to end anytime soon.

oh my

I'll take "What is the Gulf of Tonkin?" for $500, Centurion.

Hell, the president from just one administration in the past was accused of lying about the number of Albanians that were slaughered in order to justify military action in Kosovo.

All you're doing is repeating the past.

Things are as they have always been. No worse and no crazier.

so its a media conspiracy?

ein hundert

You will never get an argument from me on Gulf of Tonkin. It was little more than what Bush did to get involved in a war.

To say things are as they have always been is bizzare. To say "no worse and no crazier" is even weirder!

9/11, The Iraqi War, Bin Laden, etc etc have made this a much worse world and yes..EVEN CRAZIER!