Nyarit,

How you been? When are we going to hang out again?

I don't write anywhere well enough to publish and even if I did nobody particularly cares to hear my BS anyway. You know me well enough to know the only thing I really take seriously is my responsibility to the people that work for me, my good freinds( you included), my chilanga and my cerveza. All of the rest is just entertainment. Thats why I dont get too upset when I get flamed.

Now Kendricks, Dogster, Matiz( where has he been), Young Brig, even Jamesbr, those guys can write. I have seen publication quality work by them. Maybe we should start up an editorial board and call it "Deep thoughts from Clubhombre" LOL

Batsterwhoneedstoquaffabrewwithnyarit

Latest news:

http://msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?0cl=c3

It turns out that the documents Bush used to claim Iraq was seeking nuclear capability were faked by a third nation.

Hmmmmmmmm ..........


You guys who want to free Iraq, does it make any difference if Saddam has WMD or not?

Batster,

You seem a tad too comforatble with the idea that the U.S. is a terrorist nation. ;)

As for what the U.S. could do to be a little less hated, well it is a difficult situation, but doing a little less of what makes it hated would be a good start. Risky proposition though. Any process based on morality would almost certainly endanger national interests - and I don't see the U.S. or any other nation doing that any time soon.

Explorer, in answer to your question....as far as I'm concerned, no it doesn't make any difference to me at all if Saddam Hussein has WMD or not. It's enough that he has the track record he does, and has the resources of a potentially very wealthy state at his command. He could easily have a nuclear weapon in 5 years, and that alone is reason enough to get rid of him.

To my mind, one of America's big mistakes was to make such a big deal about WMDs. They should have just said that Hussein's departure was the minimum they'd be willing to accept to resolve the situation. Politically more difficult, I'll agree, but a case could've been made, and it would have had the virtue of being more honest.

Action jackson,

You hit the nail on the head. This should have never been about WMD. It should have never been taken back to the UN for further approval. Clinton signed an executive order back in 1998 that effectively made "Regime Change in Iraq" official US policy. From day one that has been the only acceptable outcome. And it is what Bush should have stressed from the beginning. While I support Bush on this, I admit he has made some big blunders.

At any rate, anybody who prefers to beleieve Saddam when he says he destroyed all WMD is pretty damn gullible if you ask me. They just dont want to believe he has WMD. Because believing he has WMD means you have to face the truth and take action. And that just might put you in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with the arch enemy George Bush. There is absolutley no doubt that he had WMD. Not even the Frogs deny that. The question is if he destroyed them or not. If Explorer prefers to believe Saddamm, nobody will ever convice him otherwise. And there is no reason to try.

Even if Saddam could prove he destroyed his WMD, and he cant because he hasn't, he is still in violation of UN resolutions. The New York Times is reporting today that a French company, CIS Paris, recently brokered a deal through a Syrian Middleman to buy 20 tons of A transparent liquid rubber called Hydroxy Terminated Polybutidiene, known in the rocket trade( maybe something you know about Explorer)as HTPB, form a chinese company. The material was shipped by sea to Syria and shipped by truck to Iraq. All of this in defiance of the UN because this is prohibited material. If he is so harmless, why does he need more rockets. Self Defense? The only country that can threaten him is the US. And we would not be threatening him if he would have disarmed and complied with UN resolutions. He is troublemaker and a tyrant. On that basis alone we should get rid of him. And before anyone compares hiim to Bush ask when was the last time that Bush gassed an American town, or practiced genocide, used rape torture and executions as a way to subjugate the population, or murdered his own son in laws? There is no moral relativism here. So dont go there.

I heard a good argument that I had not thought about. One of the alternatives to war is containment. And almost everyone suggests that containment will include continued sanctions. UNESCO estimates that sanctions are killing a minimum of 60,000 Iraquis a year. So lets say we contain him another 5 years. Thats another 300,000 dead. Which is probably less than wil die in a war.

It is a damn scary situation and attacking Iraq could cause a lot of damage we wont know how to take care of. But I am with Kendricks. "When are we going to start lighting the Fuckers Up"

I started to lose it on the last couple of paragraphs. I am a shitty multi tasker.

My point was that Sanctions will kill more Iraquis than a possible war. Not the opposite.


batster

HTB, if I remember correctly, is the same stuff used to make hockey pucks. In the rocket business, its used for hybrid rockets, which aren't used for military applications (since they require a cryogenic oxydizer).

If someone is trying to sell the idea that Saddam is importing HTB for missiles, well, its a crock.
Saddam generally uses 1950's era Soviet engines that use less exotic but more useful propellants. As an example, the Scuds use an amine propellant with nitric acid for an oxidizer. Nasty stuff to be around, but storable (compared with the German V-2 that served as the model for the Scud).

At any rate, there's a boatload of lies and misinformation out there that makes one wonder where and why that is so, but you guys aren't interested in the WMD, you just want to get rid of Saddam. Americans with the desire to rid the world of their enemies is far scarier than third world tinpot dictators with ancient and weak weapons.

There are lots and lots of dictators out in the world who do nasty things to their countrymen. Why focus on Saddam? Why not take out the Chinese?

I suspect that a lot of people here are doing poorly on the economic front and just want to get some. Saddam comes to mind because the Bush Administration wants his oil, and is making big noises about Saddam.

Yes explorer. After I picked myself up off my office floor and wiped the tears out of my eyes. I had to agree you are right. I am sure Iraq is going to great lengths to sneak in the material to make hockey pucks for all of those underprivileged Iraqi Hockey teams. I cant believe that the UN would put the ingredient for Hockey pucks on their prohibited materials list. They probably just want to cut out competition for the Canadian and Russian hockey teams, you never can tell with those sneaky UN bastards.

And as I clearly posted above, you are right, I don't give a shit about WMD. I do believe Saddam has them. But even if he didn't I think there is plenty of reason to take him out for all the reasons I clearly listed above. Bloodthirsty bastards like me may scare you. But what scares me is hiding our head in the sand and waiting for the next Islamic sucker punch.

In the end it comes down to the fact that we disagree. And thats OK. It is obvious that nothing short of a mushroom cloud rising over Coronado and Osama and Saddam caught escaping in a van on I-8 will convince you the guy is dangerous. But lets agree to disagree.

I am not sure what you mean by the last paragraph. I don't know if you are refering to countries or people not doing well on the income front. In my case 2002 was the best income year of my entire career. And 2003 is on track to top it.

By the way. I dont own any oil stocks. My pappy spent 33 years working for "big oil" and knows a little about the market. Based on his advice, I don't plan on buying any either. I know that flies in the face of the anti war crowds insistence that this is only about oil. The old man predicts that if Bush goes in to Iraq, oil prices will soon drop to 5-10 year lows and that oil profits will actually drop. Then again, feel free to remind me of my error if that is not the case about 1 year after the dust settles.

batsterwhogetsachargeoutofexplorer

Who care how many Iraqis die? Really. There are too many of them already. There are legitimate reasons not to go to war, but worrying about "the children" or some other ephemereal concept is not one of them.

Powerslave,

Not sure who was worrying about the children. My argument was that the many of the boneheads that are saying we should not kill the poor Iraqis in a war, are pushing for continued sanctions and containment that ultimately kills more people than would a war. I think war is the only option. Light them up.

Having said that. I hate to see innocents die any time, even if they are towel heads. Call me a softy.

Well, I checked. Its hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), the stuff used to make hockey pucks and the like that is the threat that requires American soldiers to go to war against Iraq.

I'm sure the reason that its on some list is that it could theoretically be used to serve as the fuel for a hybrid rocket. Not that Iraq has even shown an interest in this technology.

On another note, which of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are a threat to us here in America?

Explorer,

I guess Anthrax or VX or ricin or Botulin Toxin are not dangerous to Americans. Only to other people? Those are all things Iraq has admitted to having in the past. And Saddam has not fully accounted for their disposal.

Sure, you are going to say how would he get it over here? How can he threaten us? And I ask why the hell should we wait to find out?

Your hero Bill Clinton said on record, referring to Saddams WMD, "I guarantee you that someday he will use them". His comments alone give me reason to not want to wait around and find out how or when he will use them. That might be one of the few times Clinton spoke the truth.

But hell if you want to check it out, Saddam is still looking for more human shields. Maybe a little first hand investigation is in order.

Batsterwhodoesnottrustsaddam

I'm back from a coma. I saw the light at the end of the tunnel.. but I'm glad I'm back. Special thanks to Milky and Jamesbr. Greetings to Prog, Mura, DG, KM, Bome, Hombre and all. Now I just hope I haven't becomed reatarded or somethong.

Errrr ...... Saddam has had the anthrax ever since we gave it to him in the mid 1980's. Why do we have to get it back now? What's so urgent?

I'm still intruigued by that fake "information" about Iraq allegedly buying uranium from Niger. Since the President used that fake data to "make his case" about the war on national TV, do you think that he will likewise make a retraction on national television?

Batster

I have been away as well. Your post is quite well thought out (from a couple of days ago) but I must disagree with you that this will make the US a safer place, in fact It should be just the opposite. Starting a war that will probably bring the entire world into the fight has no value to anyone that wishes to have a safe future for their family. I do not usually do much copy and paste but this article by William Rivers Pitt from today is one of the very best I have ever read on the subject. Yes Iraq is going to be a stepping stone for persons that would like to see world domination.

By William Rivers Pitt

March 14, 2003

The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.

PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.

Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.

Who is PNAC? Its members include:

* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;

* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;

* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;

* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;

* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;

* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;

* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;

* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;

* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;

* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.

The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.

The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.

The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.

Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."

This casts Bush's speech to AEI on Wednesday in a completely different light.

Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line.

At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game.

Thus, the payout.

It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records, Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service.

Another corporation that stands to do well by a war in Iraq is Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ostensibly, Brown & Root is in the construction business, and thus has won a share of the $900 million government contract for the rebuilding of post-war Iraqi bridges, roads and other basic infrastructure. This is but the tip of the financial iceberg, as the oil wells will also have to be repaired after parent-company Halliburton puts out the fires.

More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit. If anyone should wonder why the administration has not offered an exit strategy to the Iraq war plans, the presence of Brown & Root should answer them succinctly. We do not plan on exiting. In all likelihood, Brown & Root is in Iraq to build permanent bases there, from which attacks upon other Middle Eastern nations can be staged and managed.

Again, this casts Bush's speech on Wednesday in a new light.

Being at the center of the action is nothing new for Halliburton and Brown & Root. The two companies have worked closely with governments in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia during the worst chapters in those nation's histories. Many environmental and human rights groups claim that Cheney, Halliburton and Brown & Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos. More recently, Brown & Root was contracted by the Defense Department to build cells for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill for that one project came to $300 million.

Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day.

Another company with a vested interest in both war on Iraq and massively increased defense spending is the Carlyle Group. Carlyle, a private global investment firm with more than $12.5 billion in capital under management, was formed in 1987. Its interests are spread across 164 companies, including telecommunications firms and defense contractors. It is staffed at the highest levels by former members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Former President George H. W. Bush is himself employed by Carlyle as a senior advisor, as is long-time Bush family advisor and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

One company acquired by Carlyle is United Defense, a weapons manufacturer based in Arlington, VA. United Defense provides the Defense Department with combat vehicle systems, fire support, combat support vehicle systems, weapons delivery systems, amphibious assault vehicles, combat support services and naval armaments. Specifically, United Defense manufactures the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, the M88A2 Recovery Vehicle, the Grizzly, the M9 ACE, the Composite Armored Vehicle, the M6 Linebacker, the M7 BFIST, the Armored Gun System, the M4 Command and Control Vehicle, the Battle Command Vehicle, the Paladin, the Crusader, and Electric Gun/Pulse Power weapons technology.

In other words, everything a growing Defense Department, a war in Iraq, and a burgeoning American military empire needs.

Ironically, one group that won't profit from Carlyle's involvement in American military buildup is the family of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family fortune was amassed by Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama, who built a multi-billion dollar construction empire through contracts with the Saudi government. The Saudi BinLaden Group, as this company is called, was heavily invested in Carlyle for years. Specifically, they were invested in Carlyle's Partners II Fund, which includes in that portfolio United Defense and other weapons manufacturers.

This relationship was described in a September 27, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Bin Laden Family Could Profit From Jump in Defense Spending Due to Ties to US Bank.' The 'bank' in question was the Carlyle Group. A follow-up article published by the Journal on September 28 entitled ' Bin Laden Family Has Intricate Ties With Washington - Saudi Clan Has Had Access To Influential Republicans ' further describes the relationship. In October of 2001, Saudi BinLaden and Carlyle severed their relationship by mutual agreement. The timing is auspicious.

There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve.

This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices.

Essential social, medical, educational and retirement services will have to be gutted so that those funds can be directed towards a necessary military buildup. Actions taken abroad to establish the preeminence of American power, most specifically in the Middle East, will bring a torrent of terrorist attacks to the home front. Such attacks will bring about the final suspension of constitutional rights and the rule of habeas corpus, as we will find ourselves under martial law. In the end, however, this may be inevitable. An empire cannot function with the slow, cumbersome machine of a constitutional democracy on its back. Empires must be ruled with speed and ruthlessness, in a manner utterly antithetical to the way in which America has been governed for 227 years.

And yes, of course, a great many people will die.

It would be one thing if all of this was based purely on the ideology of our leaders. It is another thing altogether to consider the incredible profit motive behind it all. The President, his father, the Vice President, a whole host of powerful government officials, along with stockholders and executives from Halliburton and Carlyle, stand to make a mint off this war. Long-time corporate sponsors from the defense, construction and petroleum industries will likewise profit enormously.

Critics of the Bush administration like to bandy about the word "fascist" when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi stormtroopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, dubbed 'the father of Fascism,' defined the word in a far more pertinent fashion. "Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Boycott the French, the Germans, and the other 114 nations who stand against this Iraq war all you wish. France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again.

Would that we Americans could be so wise.

-------

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.

Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

Jamesbr,

Good stuff. I have always been intrigued by conpsiracy theories.

batstertryingtobelieve

Batster

I do not care about theories, only facts. Look at the facts of who is behind this and what they have said they want out of this war, and you do not need to be talking about theories

The fact that Halliburton has been doing business in all of the above-mentioned countries is no secret. Much of what Pitt’s reports are in HAL's annual report. One of the main reasons Chaney was hired by Halliburton is because of the close ties he developed with many of the Arab leaders, while he was Sec. of Defense, during Desert Storm. It has paid off big time for Hal in the years since DS in huge multi million dollar contracts with the Saudi's, Kuwait, etc.

"More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit."

Are you kidding me? What a conspiracy!!

Brown and Root the largest construction company in the world ( worked for them one summer while I was in college) has been owned by HAL since 1962. They were building airports in Da Nang during Viet Nam and have the expertise to build and construct military facilities.

It is not surprising HAL continues to be the largest government building contractor, they have been for forty years. Also not a surprise is that they make a profit. Why else would they stay in business?

Halliburton, which is the largest oil well service company in the world and by the way, has the best equipment of anyone for helping put out oil well fires, has been in the Middle East since the mid forties. Of course they do allot of business in the Middle East.

Any way, this great discovery about HAL, which Dick Chaney had to completely divest himself of, when he ran for VP with George W. is not any thing new, In fact, the Democrats haven't even brought up these conflicts of interest for at least a year as their own investigations into HAL including an SEC investigation turned up nothing. NOTHING!!

Please spare me the conspiracy theory as I have not had my breakfast.

"Who care how many Iraqis die? Really. There are too many of them already. There are legitimate reasons not to go to war, but worrying about "the children" or some other ephemereal concept is not one of them."

If meant in jest, it's just bad taste. But I get a feeling this was written sincerely, which just make it sad. Casual throw away remarks like "light them up" are also unworthy of what I hope the U.S. still stands for at some level.

You guys do remember that you're talking about 'lighting up' a lot of innocents that have never done any harm to you or yours, right?

Like I said, I'm for this thing, but that kind of talk is demeaning. Mostly to those who utter it, but also to your military which is there to carry out a difficult task in a professional manner, and of course to the innocent victims.

How could anyone who says shit like this ever ask where the hate comes from?

The anti-war protesters are just mad about the fact that they voted for Ralph Nader. And, as far as anti-war protest chicks, they are all so fucking ugly and butch looking they aren't getting any cock and are sexually frustrated. They all need to get fucked in the ass. Twice.

My stock portfolio is getting worse by the day. Bush needs to make a fucking decision and impliment it fucking fast. Even if it's a bad decision, shit or get off the pot.

In other words, let's start killing people quicker, so your stocks go up.

Ben,

That is not a conspiracy theory. That is all fact. Of course I am not sure we ever made it to the moon either.

Those of us who have spent time working around the oil business know that Halliburton is involved in oil business all over the world and has been for at least 50 years. My brother used to work for them. Good company. I see nothing odd about the fact that they may be heavily involved in Iraq reconstruction.

Brown and Root also builds damns, roads etc. When I was a kid they built a big damn near my home. Employed lots of locals. Good for the economy. Once again I am not too surprised that they are to be involved in post Iraq construction. In fact I would be surprised if they were not.

I was also interested to see that the perrenial boogeyman of the left, Elliot Abrahms, is involved in the PNAC. Anytime his name is trotted out as a central character in a plot I take interest. Good entertainment.

I have to disagree with Jamesbr. This is some hard fact mixed up with a whole lot of hyperbolic allegations. Things like "Many environmental and human rights groups CLAIM that Cheney, Halliburton, and Brown and Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos" is pure allegation. There is a big theoretical leap here from legitimate business to a dark Cabal ruling the world.

That was nice of Clinton to get us involved in Kosovo for an open ended committment. I wonder if he and Madeliene Albright have Halliburton in their portfolio. Smart investors if so.

I am curious though about the danger the Serbs presented to the US. Can anybody tell me?


Batsterstilltryingtobelieve

ActionJackson,

Please see above. I make it clear that I dont like to see innocents die. Yes I jokingly make fun of them being rag heads. But I dont like to see non combatants die. I think the whole situation stinks. I cant believe it has reached this point. But since it is entirely plausible that more innocents will die through continued sanctions and Saddams own depravations( according to UNESCO at least 60,000 per year) than through a well executed war, I say what are we waiting for. I say Light them up. Sorry if that is not politically correct.

I think Powerslave made the comment about there being to many Iraqis, etc, etc. Powerslave does not mince his words. And he has pretty strong opinions. But I also read into his posts a dark sense of humour. So take it how you may.

I have really got a kick out of some of the comments on this thread. But it is obvious that the lines are drawn and nobody will be changing any ones opinion here. And thats OK. This is a forum for expressing ones opinion. It does not mean we need agree.

As I have repeatedly said I think there is plenty of justification for taking out Saddam based on his continued violations of the original cease fire agreement. I also think there is a basis on humantarian grounds. He is a tyrant who continues to cause th edeath of thousands of Iraqi civilians. I also think he has clear connections to terrorists. Maybe not Al Qaueda, but Islamic terrorist none the less. All Islamic terrorists areour enemy now. As far as WMD. I believe Bush and Powell more than Saddam and the French. For all of those reasons and more, I believe he has to go. So why wait. Lets get it over with. Iraqi Innocents will die. Thats the nature of war. But I can guarantee you that if we do nothing, American innocents will die. And as terrible and racist as it may sound, if innocents are going to die, I say let them be Iraqis and not Americans.

The time for action has come. Waiting for the UN or letting Saddam wiggle off this hook will not benefit the US in any way shape or form. I am not sure where action will take us. It is scary as hell. But we all know what doing nothing brings us. Do we want to see more? Once again, coining Kendricks phrase, light them up.

Batstertheindignant( he he)

Batster,

I can't stand political correctness, but I thought someone who put as much thought as you apparently do into what you write, would also care enough not to refer to people as if they were cigarrettes. Like I said, it degrades you.

As for Powerslaver's words, sorry but you do yourself a disservice in defending them. Strong opinions and not mincing words - neither requires or justifys racist sentiments.

If this sounds judgemental and goody two shoes, so be it. Participating in a thread like this, I felt obliged to insure my silence wasn't taken for agreement.

And I did not change my mind on the question of invading Iraq.

(Message edited by luckyjackson on March 14, 2003)

Explorer: "In other words, let's start killing people quicker, so your stocks go up."

Ah, come on. You make it sound like investors are the evil monsters that the media likes to portray them. In fact, the market had a huge gain Thursday on the idea that the war might be stalled or even postponed.

Ben: "I am curious though about the danger the Serbs presented to the US. Can anybody tell me?"

Oh oh. I guess I'm the only right winger on this board that fully supported Clinton on the former Yugoslavia and bitched because he took so long to get involved. That was a moral issue (of the highest standard as all moral issues tend to be). It was also the proof that "modern" Europe hasn't changed a darn bit when it comes to ignoring mass genocide within its own boundaries. The French were chicken shits when it came to recognizing Nazi brutality against the Jews, French brutality against the Algerians and Vietnamese, and repeated massacres throughout Africa. And they were perfectly willing to ignore what was going on in the former Yugoslavia. Ditto with the Dutch who like to showcase their hearts by honoring Anne Frank while forgetting their history in Indonesia. And the Belgiums have never heard of King Leopold and his sordid history in the Belgium Congo. Our actions in Bosnia and Company were justifiable if you believe humans need to advance beyond the stone age mentality of many of the locals.

Jamesbr: "The conspiracy theory"

While in college back in the late 60s one of my professors wrote a book lumping together a big chunk of the elite defense company executives and elite Eastern Republicans (naturally) claiming that the entire Vietnam war was part of an overall plan to enrich themselves while enslaving that part of the world. Looking back, I wonder why the Kennedys were left out since it was under JFK that the war starting moving and under LBJ that it took of in a big way.

Later there some theory about a group of equally elite greedy capitalists who met once a year at some wooded resort here in California. And didn't let women in except as guests.

I guess conspiracy theories are fun because some times they turn out to be true. And if extremist Islamics and ultra conservative Jews can dream of a world where only they dominate and the rest of us are their slaves I suppose some equally sick US super rich can do the same.

I just think seeing all that really cool military hardware blowing the shit out of Iraq will be really cool on TV. Kind of like the ultimate reality show. Fear factor, Survivor, crap like that just doesn't do it for me. "Iraq war, live" will make much more exciting television viewing. I mean, you don't know what is going to happen on tomorrows show. There will be a genuine element of suspense. It will be way cool. Hey, afterworlds do you think young, impoverished Iraqi widows will be selling their bodies for a loaf of pita bread? War is often beneficial for mongering. Look at the flesh trade in Kosovo, or Bosnia, or Cambodia. I'm just getting sick and tired of the previews. Let the war show begin.

Sancho,

If we're really lucky, you'll get your own 15 minutes of fame real soon.

Actionjackson,

I am glad you stick to your opinions. And I am glad to see you have a consience.

I have made it plainly clear that I don't like to see innocents die. In fact thats one of the best reasons to get rid of Saddam. I do give plenty of thought to this issue and many more. I have spent nearly 40% of my adult life living outside of the US( Europe and Mexico). That experience definitely flavors my opinions. Sometimes I may seem overly patriotic and sometimes I may seem unpatriotic. My take on the pros and cons of our country and our politicians may be different than the norm.

Sorry if my sense of humor degrades me. But I am not particularly worried about it. This is a whore board after all. Our little hobby is considered degrading by most of society. But I am fine with myself.

And yes I will defend Powerslaves right to an opinion. Just as I will yours, and Explorers, and even Jamebrs right to espouse conspiracy theories. Thats what open forums are about.

I extend to every newcomer to the board and invitation to meet for a beer in TJs Zona. I have met about 30 of them so far. So fat I have liked them all. I have even made a few close freinds. The invitation stands. Any takers? I am frigging dying to meet Explorer.

Batster

Explorer,

The Washington Times is reporting that the HTPB that China shipped to Iraq was trucked to a missile manufacturing plant originally built to produce the Badr-2000 - also know as Condor - long range missle. Do you suppose that Iraq converted that factory to making hockey pucks?

Tight Fit,

That was me that asked about the threat the serbs posed to us. It was a rhetorical question. I was also in agreement with Clintons decision to go in. I also think he took too long. I asked the question because I keep hearing from people like explorer that since Saddamm poses us no threat we should not be going after him. Serbia posed no real threat to the united states but clinton went in without UN approval and was actually supported by people like Mike Farrell who are shitting their pants about Iraq. I just want some anti war person to explain the inconsistency. Not only that but clintons stupid ass policy to bomb from above 10,000 ft guaranteed the increase in civilian casualties. I think this is an anti Bush movement not a real anti war movement. And in Europe it is an anti american movement.

Boy I need to get to the Zona. I am tired about writing about politics. It is alot better to talk about chicas. There is no argument that Panocha is SWEET.

batster

Luckyjackson,

If I go out in some particularly gruesome, humorous or otherwise particularly unpleasant manner, I just pray that someone has the good sense to get it on video tape so that the entertainment starved masses can have a few good minutes of television viewing at the expense of my own suffering ;)

Batster,

I'm aware of the purpose behind discussion forums. I don't think anything I wrote could be understood as an attempt to take away someone's right to an opinion. What brought that up?

Even Saddam Hussein has a right to an opinion, doesn't mean it's a good one though. Right? You'd probably agree it's the duty of all right thinking Americans to expose Hussein's opinions as dumb. Powerslaver's seem no less so. Surely you don't agree with his comments?

And speaking of humour...now when Sancho unselfishly offers up his own possibly violent demise as entertainment, that IS funny. When you wish it on others, it ain't funny anymore. Especially when those 'others' are poor schmucks living under a brutal dictator with no opportunity to even run away. A subtle - but important - distinction. Trust me on this one, I'm Canadian, (remember those good SNL characters, and Jim Carey, Mike Myers??), we know funny. ;)

Carry on.

Sorry for getting off topic.

Anyone care to guess on the date hostilities will begin? Maybe we can arrange a free session in winner's city of choice through paypal or something.

Expect hostilities over the new moon.

Still researching that HTPB connection. The literature seems to mix up the Condor 2 with an 1980's vontage Argentinian project that did use HTPB. At any rate HTBP isn't the best thing to use for rocket fuel (ammonium perchlorate is the chemical of choice), so it isn't as if Iraq is going to build some ICBM with that propellant.

Of course, they're not going to make hockey pucks, either.

Are you sure that the HTPB is to be used in liquid form and not hardened and used with other materials for nose cones, turbopump components, nozzles and such? That seems a more useful application of the product then as a fuel.

Given that HPTB burns like a mother, it's certainly not for nose cones or turbo pumps or nozzles.

To be very clear on this (and I am an expert and criminal mastermind on the topic of explosives and missiles), HPTB PLUS ammonium perchlorate equals rocket fuel. HPTP (Hydroxyl terminated Polybutadiene) is a fuel, ammonium perchlorate is an oxidizer. Both a fuel AND an oxidizer are required to propel a rocket motor. Either by itself is useless as "rocket fuel" but the mixture of the two plus perhaps some aluminum powder equals an excellent rocket fuel for everything from small shoulder launched missiles to ICBM's due to its stability an ease of casting into complex rocket core shapes.

(Message edited by I_am_Sancho on March 17, 2003)

Are there any Americans who are NOT expert in explosives and small hand weapons? ;) Sorry, I just watched Bowling For Columbine.

Well, today was an important marker of sorts in Dubya's mishandling of this whole fiasco. He and Blair have really fucked up. Where his dad appeared to have some skill at convincing and arm twisting nations into positions of support, Georgie is obviously clueless.

So now, barring a miracle, the U.S. will go it alone, (despite all that "coalition of the willing" b.s.), and I fear will have to pay a high price in the future when it tries to get any kind of cooperation from the U.N. or individual countries. I hope that's the only price to be paid. Though I really think the effort was misguided and fumbling, I still think you Yanks are basically right on this one.

Weird. How can the same government capable of organizing the unimaginably complex project of actually waging the war, can be SO hopeless at getting its diplomatic ducks in a row?

We are not "going it alone". A HUGE percentage of the UK army is with us, as are a large number of Australian troops. I wish someone had "gone it alone" against Hitler in the 1930's.
As to the UN, if this doesn't prove its utter irelevance, nothing will. Giving France a seat on the security council was a mistake from day one.

My high quality Mexican internet service was dead from Friday until today, so it is nice to return to the board and find I seem to have a fan club. To those that don't like my comments, too bad. We are dealing with not nice people, and are going to have to do some very not nice things to them. And, yes, children are going to die. So what. Better Iraqi children than American ones. We killed piles of German and Japanese children 60 years ago. Should we have NOT done so?
Put simply, the Arab/Muslim world has declared war on us. It is a war we did not want, but now we have it. And they are now going to begin to pay the price. Too bad for them.

"A slave to the power of death"

For all intents and purposes, America is going it alone. The only reason they attached any importance to getting the U.N. sanction for war was because of the optics. Without that, this will play out as America's show. Can you imagine this happening without the U.S.? I thought so.

Powerslaver, welcome back to the conversation. It was in danger of becoming enlightened. Most of the opinions here seem to have been reflected on pretty carefully. Your ideas are on the other hand are important insofar as they remind people of how the situation may be perceived by the lower orders of the KKK. By all means, express yourself.

Getting back to more interesting stuff, with the exception of the last two or three minutes, I thought Dubya's speech tonight was just about the best I've ever seen him deliver. Not a difficult achievement, I know. He should've cut it a bit shorter, would've been more effective. Did anyone else think that line about Saddam's sons a bit unusual? Makes me think they might've got wind of plan to pass power to one of the sons in the hope that satisfy the U.S. and forestall an attack. Pathetic ploy of course.

So it looks like the U.S. will begin sometime Wednesday night I guess.

Luckyjackson, I also own an assault rifle, shotgun, sniper rifle, several handguns and have thousands of rounds of rounds of ammunition around my house and not even because I'm afraid of anyone or anything or have any evil intent. Just for fun. Ain't America great.

Bush is right on with Iraq and the rest of the world is just plain wrong. Sadam Husain has quite literally killed millions. Yes MILLIONS of deaths and yet the world chooses his side over George Bush. It's kind of scary that the rest of the planet is so far out there.

Where we the US are way off is the way we back Israel so closely even as they pull all the crap they are pulling. I could give a shit less if the Israelis ethnic cleanse all of the Palestinians but I'm sick of footing the bill for it and taking the hatred of the world that sees the blatant hipocricy of our foreign policy being applied to every nation except untouchable Israel. I say we cut Israel lose and stop paying for there ethnic cleansing campaign, and I bet without big brother to back them they will make peace with the Arabs real quick.

Now let's get on with the Iraq war show. I'm getting bored.

Unlucky jackson, you sound like one of several potential former posters in disguise. Are you sure this is your only handle? Does everyone who disagrees with you belong to the KKK? Climb back under your rock, and leave this discussion for people with actual input.
Bush's speech tonight was very good. A very nice "fuck off and die" to the frogs (O SHIT, SOMEONE WILL CALL ME RACIST NOW!). He placed the onus squarely where it belongs, on Saddam. Saddam can stop this process just by leaving. If he chooses to do so, he and thousands of Iraqis will get to live. If he chooses not to, their blood will be on his hands.

Bush's speech was a good one even if I don't totally agree with him. For once he managed to leave out all the bible banger BS about this being some sort of moral crusade against the heathens.

And let's admit something regardless of politics. He looked like a leader which is something Clinton never was able to pull off. Somewhere in the memory banks is an old saying that Democrats get us into wars and Republicans clean the mess up aferwards. And then get blamed by the same Demos for whatever went wrong.

Here's hoping the Iraqi generals do our dirty work for us and get rid of Saddam. It would save a lot of lives. And here's an equal hope that once things settle down that Bush & Company get out of that part of the world militarly, and that includes Israel, and start working towards a serious end to the problems of the region.

Sancho, I'm rocking back in my chair. I actually agree with you. Believe me, I'm in the minority up here in Canada. Yesterday our Prime Minister received applause from the overwhelming majority of Parliament when he stood up to say "Canada will not participate." I'm sure the U.S. military is shaking in its boots at the thought of losing support of the mighty Canadian army. ;) Have fun with your guns.

Powerslaver, very clever play on words with the UNlucky Jackson thing. I'm obviously dealing with a formidable intellect. No, I don't use any other handle. Why would I need more anonymity then this one provides? I see the "KKK" and '"racist" barbs stung you a bit. That's good, since I don't use them lightly. The ideas you expressed in this thread, (excepting your most recent post which I generally agreed with), were undeserving of respect. Your previous comments about there being too many Iraqis and killing children would shame rational Americans who remember what your country stands for, precisely because they were racist and cowardly.

T.F., yeah the speech had some good moments, but the "looking a leader" thing is entirely subjective. I'm glad he conveys that to you, but to me his simian qualities, and the fact he can't pronounce 'nuclear' even though he tries real hard, make it difficult to take the guy seriously. Clinton may have been slick, but at least he came across as intelligent IMHO.

In this instance, I really do believe American interests coincide with what's right. The world, and Iraq, will be better off without a madman like S.H. at the helm of all that power. It will be interesting to see what the political fallout of all this will be. Will France really turn out to be the voice of Europe? Bad for both the E.C. and the U.S. if this turns out to be true. French moves on this have been entirely self serving - but effective. There's no doubt they frustrated America at the U.N. They hate America's dominance in the world, and are willing to cause a lot of needless friction to challenge it.

(Message edited by luckyjackson on March 18, 2003)

Tuesday 18 March 2003

An associate of mine, a former political appointee, recently spoke to a Republican friend of his who serves in a senior position in what has become the Office of Homeland Security. He reports that this official, along with many of his colleagues across the political spectrum within the apparatus of government, are absolutely terrified of George W. Bush. According to this official, the consensus is that Bush has completely lost touch with reality, and is bringing us to a place where politics will no longer matter.

A London newspaper, the Guardian, has quoted a source close to the administration as saying, "This has been the worst diplomatic debacle of our lifetime." A senior White House official is also quoted as saying, in a voice reportedly awash with sarcasm, "There's a recognition that this has not been our finest diplomatic hour."

There is no calculating the understatement here. There was never any diplomacy involved here to begin with. This has been a disaster, and it is about to get worse by orders of magnitude.

The weapons inspectors, empowered by UN resolution 1441 to ferret out the weapons everyone is so concerned about, have packed their bags and fled Iraq. They have been betrayed by the Bush administration, by Tony Blair and by Spain, as they worked to protect us from both these weapons and from the dreadful effects of a war in the Middle East.

The inspections were working – weapons were being dismantled, Hussein was under control, and no mass destruction materials were found. The fact that the hammer has come down before these inspectors were even half done with their work means, simply, that those pushing for war never wanted the inspections to work in the first place.

Welcome to the timeline.

Very soon now, perhaps within the next 72 hours, the Pentagon's "Shock and Awe" battle plan will be put into effect. 3,000 munitions, including some 800 cruise missiles, will rain down on Baghdad, a city inhabited by some 5 million civilians. This will be done in the hope that the Iraqi army will surrender, thus avoiding the need to send U.S. troops in to fight a ruinous house-to-house battle.

The Arab news service Al Jazeera, operating out of Qatar, will capture images of thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians sprawled and shattered and bloody in the Baghdad streets, in a manner quite like the bodies we saw in New York on September 11. The resulting explosion of rage within the moderate and extremist Muslim world will be immediate and ferocious.

The terrorism alert status in America will rise to red. Troops will appear in the streets.

Saddam Hussein will not flee, and his forces will stand in Baghdad. American troops will be forced to fight downtown.

The oilheads in Iraq will be fired, and the pipeheads will be opened.

Israel will be attacked, much to the dismay of Bush administration officials who have pushed this war in the erroneous assumption that such action will serve to protect that nation. Unlike the first Gulf War, this time Israel will strike back.

American homeland security forces – police, fire fighters and emergency rescue personnel – will watch their radios nervously, waiting for the inevitable call. They know, better than anyone, that this country is not ready to defend itself against an attack. Their budgets have been gutted, the promised funding to augment their preparedness has not come. They are not ready, but they stand and wait regardless, because that is what they have pledged to do.

Somewhere in America – perhaps in New York, perhaps in Washington DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Miami, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Detroit, San Francisco, Cleveland, Atlanta, perhaps in all of them simultaneously – there will be an explosion. A group that cares nothing for the well being of Saddam Hussein will take responsibility, in the name of those thousands of Iraqi Muslims slaughtered in the initial aerial bombardment of Baghdad.

The body bags will come out, here at home and across the sea in Iraq, as Americans begin to die in terrible numbers.

Martial law will be declared, habeas corpus will be suspended, posse comitatus will be left aside, and the strictures outlined by both Patriot Acts will come to full bloom. 227 years of constitutional law in America will draw to a close.

An oil shock will roll across the global community, ripping through an already precarious economic situation. Here at home, the financial cost of this war will hurl us further into deficit.

More explosions will echo across the streets of America. They could be nuclear or biological or chemical in nature, because in the effort to overthrow Hussein we have ignored completely the fact that al Qaeda certainly possesses the capabilities to attack us with these weapons, having needed no help whatsoever from Hussein. These explosions could come from simple fertilizer, as well. Remember that two men with a sniper rifle and a car held Maryland hostage for a month. It does not take much, considering the shoddy state of affairs in the homeland security realm.

In all likelihood, America will score a decisive military victory. U.S. forces will invest Iraq. The Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root will begin construction on any number of permanent military bases. Administration officials will begin to formulate plans for the removal of other governments in the Middle East, both friendly and unfriendly, by any means necessary.

Civil war will break out in Iraq as the Shia majority, the Kurdish and Sunni minorities, go for each other's throats. American constabulary work there will become infinitely complicated.

The United States of America has concluded an incredible, perhaps unstoppable, race to the bottom since January of 2001. The disputed election brought to power a mob of men – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton – who have been planning this war since at least 1997. The attacks of September 11, allowed in no small part by purposeful blinders placed over the eyes of our intelligence services lest they offend petroleum principalities like Saudi Arabia with their prickly questions, gave these men the excuse they needed for war.

The Bush administration's reaction to 9/11 – placing blame on "evildoers" instead of starting an honest dialogue, blocking an independent investigation of the attack for over a year, nominating master secret-keeper Henry Kissinger to chair that investigative panel in what was perhaps the most disgusting insult possible to the families of the lost, ignoring the real terrorist threats in order to focus on the politically expedient annihilation of Iraq, instituting the most ham-fisted diplomatic push ever seen in the history of this nation by utterly ignoring the eleven Security Council members who said no to this war, disrupting international relations vital to the pursuit of true terrorist threats, and all the while underfunding the homeland defenses necessary to protect the American people – has led us to this dismal place.

The destruction of Saddam Hussein will do nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada, to protect America. It will place America and her citizens in further peril. We stand alone and naked today. We will reap the whirlwind.

Take to the streets. Scream until your throat bleeds. Call whatever congressional leaders you know, full in the knowledge that you will be contacting a mob of failures, appeasers and political cowards. Make sure you can look at yourself in the mirror as this darkness falls. Above all else, do not succumb to despair.

You owe that much to yourself, your children and your nation as we fade to black.

Wow,was all that really the voice of the "Republican friend" in a senior position of the Fatherland security office, or did you take a bit of license there?

No doubt that monkeyboy Bush made a complete hash of the diplomacy thing, (if he was ever serious about it), and sure there's reason to question his motives, but c'mon, don't you think this goes a bit far?

Luckyjackson

Perhaps a bit too far, and time will tell if this is the beginning of what so many have professed to be Armageddon or something like it. If it is the difficult thing to swallow now is that we started it, very ironic I must say that a country founded on peace is the very one that threw all countries into world war. Yes I do feel quite strongly about this and no I have not been brain washed by CNN and the military controled media (GE owns NBC, CNBC, MSNBC etc) and yes we are watching a brave new world unfold before our eyes. This war will without a doubt make our country a very dangerous place in which to live. The fatherland security department has been assembled to wage a war it seems against Americans and all it will take is just one more 9/11 and the wheels will be in motion. I no longer try to preach to those that refuse to wake up, anyway by the time they do wake up it could be too late.

Is the U.S. really alone?

Poland is sending 1,200 troops
Australia is sending 2,000 troops
Britain is sending 45,000 troops
Other countries are sending troops for non-combat rolls such as CW/BW detection teams. I hope nobody would stand in front of these troops and say(in a serious tone) that they don't count.


I highly doubt that anyone would see a list of governments that openly support the United State's use of force printed in the New York Times, so I'll post one.

Bahrain
Israel
Jordan
Kuwait
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Azerbaijan
Philippines
Costa Rica
Armenia
Georgia
Hungry
Czech Republic
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Denmark
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Poland
Australia
Britain


Kinda along the lines of something that Jamesbr1961 mentioned...
...In the president's speech he told Iraqi military units that if they want a free country, they will be given clear instructions telling them how to lay down their arms and avoid injury. I really hope these instructions are clear and the Iraqi forces follow them. I truly feel that this war isn't against the Iraq people, or even the Iraqi military, but it is solely against the Hussein regime. I'm sure those of us that stand on both sides of this issue hope for a minimal amount of casualties.


Luckyjackson: "I'm sure the U.S. military is shaking in its boots at the thought of losing support of the mighty Canadian army."
We still appreciate the military support of the young men and women that your country is providing in Afghanistan.

"Will France really turn out to be the voice of Europe?"
The United States was definitely embarrassed by France's efforts to block the will of the Bush administration, but I truly feel that in the long run France and the United Nations will end up the big losers in this situation. Time will tell.

Jamesbr1961,

Your incredible paranoia has risen to new heights.

I find it hard to believe that you are now blaming 9/11 on the U.S. intelligence community having blinders purposely put on them.

Our reaction to 9/11 was a show of strength and a complete dismantling of a terriost group that had been around a long time before Bush was elected President.

I think most of your latest post is total bullshit and speculation and has little to do with the facts and the problems our country faces today.

I think the most productive thing you could do with this post is send it to Tom Daschle or John Kerry so they can use your "informed sources" in their next piling on speech.

Obviously we all have the right to express our views and after seeing your latest extremely pessimistic post, I can see why you are so against going after Saddam and his thugs.

Oh, for a country that according to many on this board have no weapons of mass distruction, it is now reported that chemical warheads are being passed out to Iraqi troops.

I support our government and certainly support the men and women in our armed forces.

I also feel that we have to take a stand against Iraq or much of your fantasy post will become a reality.