That's it for the night. You kids play nice until morning

http://www.914club.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/alfred.gif

Lol Bryan.

I am!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1098850041.jpg

I've been dying to use this picture



:D

I honestly am a real female! And I think I'm pretty cool.

heh, i think every thread on this board could end with a cute kitty or puppy picture... we'd all be happier. :)

Yeah, and two people making a date for drinks? (only if they're not of opposite political opinions, of course).

of course. I wouldn't be caught dead in the same room as one of you people. :D

hmmmppphhhhh!

LMAO!

I still can't believe it:
We invade over threats of weapons
Bremer is warned a year ago of this site
The troops don't even do a search (probably not enough men)
The story is in the news a year ago
Condi and the WH find out a month ago
We find out this week (again)

And somehow this is not as bad as it sounds?

The incompetence of this administration is mind boggling.

What's the problem? There are no terrorists in Iraq. . . just freedom fighters. John Kerry says so. You lib's want the Iraqi freedom fighters to win doncha? . . . to stop their oil from going to Haliburton and Dick Cheneys party-all-night fund? :rolleyes:

Soooo...provided all the vast information within this thread, does that in fact mean we'll have a new president Nov. 2?

I just want to know what all the bickering is here, folks. All of you act so shocked, but I can't understand why.

Enough tonnage of weapons to outweigh two Statues of Liberties. How did it disappear? Or really, was it even ever there?

Let's get to the meat: is this the October surprise virtually everyone has been telegraphing since July?

Well, the Law Suits have been started.

I guess their October Surprise is doing less than they expected.


. . .. or maybe it's just that the candidates Kerry/Edwards have been performing less than expected.

That's pretty messed up.

We just want a leader who will run this war a bit less chaotic.

He thinks putting our soldiers in harms way when the enemy has stolen weapons to use against the soldiers is not supporting the troops.

Kerry is not dogging the military, he's dogging Bush the poor decisions that have been made because of Bush's power-trip and not listening to his advisors, who have more knowledge of these things.

He wants to run this war better BECAUSE he supports the troops.

This stuff is as much conjecture as you say Kerry is spewing out. In fact, it sounds a little like whining to me.
:(

To me, this sounds like yet another example of how our administration's military strategy went down. I remember seeing satellite photos of supposed WMD traffic on the front page of my newspaper and evening news as proof of their existence as told by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. You'd think they might have observed enemy truck convoys departing from a highly recognized, UN-identified special ordinance site. But maybe I'm expected something that wasn't possible even though the admin. said they were actually tracking WMD movements prior to the war. And if they were tracking these locations before the war, why weren't troops sent to secure those areas once the fighting began?

Add to this a failure to secure the borders to prevent, among other things, apparent truckloads of munitions transferred across the border, doesn't instill a lot of confidence in Rumsfield's (and thus the administration's) plan. Not enough troops? Ask General Shinseki why his pre-war recommendations for additional troops were rejected. Ask Tommy Franks why he succombed to Rumsfield's challenge to get the job done with reduced troop levels. Ask Bremer why his request for more troops went unheeded. Maybe B-C-R felt the cost for troop deployment was too high at the time and decided to save on body armor and armor plating in thinly disguised Humvee SUVs. What's the current bill now? (~$120 billiion and too many dead).

Oh, and the lack of security to protect and secure hospitals, schools, power plants and other Iraqi infrastructure just adds to the list of incompetent (too strong?) moves. But the oil fields were sorta protected and over a million meals were overbilled by Halliburton.

These cumulative events should make everyone wonder if there ever was a comprehensive plan to win the peace other than to win the war. Did the administration care enough? Maybe this was their way to jump start the economy or perhaps part of a larger global plan. They ignored UN recommendations, they ignored the advice and the reservations of our allies and they ignored the State Dept's recommendations regarding post war strategy. Military strategy is but one component of winning a war, yet the admin. seemed to put all its eggs into a one-dimensional basket. BTW, as a reminder, during this time Bin Ladin was in Afghanistan recouping with his dialysis machine and calling shots from a reclining position.

I'd rather give someone else a chance to fix this mess w/o the history of what-ifs. Bush wants to give history a chance to validate his moves - 50 years from now he says. Sorry. If American and Iraqi civilian lives are not in the equation, that would be one thing. The Texas Rangers BB club didn't wait that long. The timing is just about right. Why prolong more of the same? Looking at it pragmatically, we should cut our losses and go with Plan B, but not with the current team.

Sorry, not even trying to convince the non-believers, just MHO.
Sherwood

So is Mother Earth a safer place because our guys have destroyed <b>405,898 TONS of WEAPONS</b>? Or is it more dangerous because <u>0.0009</u> of that amount hasn't been destroyed yet? I'm sooo confused ..... :rolleyes:

Well I'm sure the world was safer when all of those weapons, including those 0.0009 weapons were in the UN hands, but then they were kicked out and the bad guys got their hands on these 0.0009 weapons, and now i dunno.

The Bushes are an interesting study in contrasts. For the record, I was, and still am, mildly impressed with Dubya's dad's performance as POTUS. And two of the best decisions he made was to truly hand the Gulf War over to the military. He expressed his instructions in terms of goals, and let them decide tactics. It was one of the most successful wars in the history of warfare. Then he had the good sense to stop once Kuwait was liberated.

by contrast, his son seems to have botched just about each and every step of this campaign. I'll not list them here, and there is no way that the folks who are posting the Dubya-supporting remarks here are going to think critically. But I think an objective reviewer would probably conclude that this current Iraq military campaign is one of the poorest planned and poorest executed military campaigns in human history.

Indeed, there are many people, much more than usual, who think that the current POTUS is perhaps not just the worst president we've ever had, but maybe the worst POSSIBLE president we could have at this point in time. That's part of what's driving the fairly vicious dialogue we're used to. Like I've said, I am supportive of my country dealing out some BLOWS for what happened on 9/11/01. But the actual execution, and location, of these BLOWS to me represents the absolute worst possible decision under the circumstances. As I say, I think that right now there is an unusually high proportion of citizens who believe the current president is the worst of all possible people for that job right now. He could not be worse. He's pompous, arrogant, insensitive, ignorant (sure he gets verbal reports, but he seems to lack both the interest in reading, and the ability to read well....or speak well for that matter), vengeful, myopic, etc. Not exactly the characteristics we need right now.

Okay, back to you guys...making excuses why the world is a safer place now that a dozen semi-loads of high explosives are in the hands of the folks trying to kill people. I've got coffee, and this is more than a little amusing.

Cool_Chick, if it does not work out with Beethoven, then let's meet in Vegas and get married.

'Kerry wants to run this war better. . .'

Are you saying gthat GW doesn't want to run this war better?

The thing is, I seriously, seriously doubt Kerry (and whatever team he can cobble together) could even hold a cnadle to the effectivness of the the seasoned Bush team.

Not even close!

But I suppose noe of that matters to a liberal. . .as long as he says he has good intensions. . . .more, faster, gooder :rolleyes:

This is serious stuff.

Do you think that the guys fighting over their, want a transion to KErry!? NO eff'n way!

Here these US soldiers are over there sacrificing for a job they believe in, so much so, that they are 74% for Bush.

Meanwhile, Kerry paints their effort like Vietnam. (wrong war, wrong place, wrong time) Why? - cuz that's all he knows how to do. Bicth Bicth Bicth. . .blame America first.

Right, you vote for kerry and tell yourself how you are "doing it for the troops." :rolleyes: