GEORGE BUSH - Page 4 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:37 AM on j-body.org
Chris, yo usound like a tired broken record.

No large cache's uh?


.S. Army Finds Buried Ammunition Cache in Iraq

Tuesday, December 20, 2005



ZUWAD KHALAF, Iraq — U.S. soldiers in the northern Iraqi desert dug up more than 1,000 aging rockets and missiles wrapped in plastic, some of which were buried as recently as two weeks ago, Army officials said Tuesday.

Commanders in the 101st Airborne Division said an Iraqi tipped them off to the buried weapons, perhaps an indication that residents in this largely Sunni Arab region about 150 miles north of Baghdad are beginning to warm up to coalition forces.

"The tide is turning," said 2nd Lt. Patrick Vardaro, 23, of Norwood, Mass., a platoon leader in the division's 187th Infantry Regiment. "It's better to work with Americans than against us."

As the sun set, soldiers from the 101st continued to uncover more, following zigzagging tire tracks across the desert floor and using metal detectors to locate weapons including mines, mortars and machine gun rounds.

"This is the mother load, right here," Sgt. Jeremy Galusha, 25, of Dallas, Ore., said, leaning on a shovel after finding more than 20 Soviet missiles.

The weapons are of primary concern for soldiers in Iraq, where bombs made with loose ordinance by insurgents are the preferred method to target coalition forces.

"In our eyes, every one of these rockets represents one less" bomb, Vardaro said.

Vardaro would not comment on whether there were signs the caches had been used recently to make bombs. But service records accompanying the missiles dated to 1984, suggesting they were buried by the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein.

Still, the plastic around some of the rockets — of Soviet, German and French origins — appeared to be fresh and had not deteriorated as it had on some of the older munitions.

A U.S. Air Force explosive ordinance team planned to begin destroying them as early as Wednesday morning.

Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:42 AM on j-body.org
I think he meant of CBRN weapons mrgto: Iraq still has a few hundred Soviet T-72 tanks that are not accounted for.

Conventional weapons weren't the predicate for invasion.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:52 AM on j-body.org
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I think he meant of CBRN weapons mrgto: Iraq still has a few hundred Soviet T-72 tanks that are not accounted for.

Conventional weapons weren't the predicate for invasion.


Thanks Gam.

mrgto: My point is the WMD/CBRN(Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear ), were not found. That was the whole premise for going to war/invasion/occupation.

All countries in the world with a standing military have caches of weaponds, granted they don't all burry them, in the dirt at least.


-Chris

Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:46 AM on j-body.org
*Curtsies* any thyme

Might be an idea to read House of Bush, House of Saud sometime... what an eye-opener.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:49 AM on j-body.org
The premece of the war, if you actually READ Res. 1441, was to make sure they complied with the Cease Fire agreement...they didn't for 12 years.

Ask yourself this question...is it plausible to think they would bury and hide WMD if in fact they would bury conventional weapons? Ask yourself WHY would they bury those things.

Every day they find unexploded munitions in Europe from WWI and WWII. We will be finding stuff in Iraq long after all of us are part of this earth. That is my point.
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:15 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

The fact is everyone was lied to. There are no WMDs, no manufacturing plants, no big caches. Saddam was (as suspected by many) sabre rattling in order to look bigger than he was. He was trying to save face as the tough guy who'll stand up to the US. He made a terrible error in that action. He had nothing to hide, but wanted people to think he did. That played right into the hands of those who fed us the lies and proceeded to invade a nation and create all new enemies.



They were mistakes by the CIA and many other nations intelligence agencies, not just our own.



Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:20 AM on j-body.org
I have a question for everyone because I dont remember off the top of my head...

What was the United Nations stance on Iraqs possesion of WMD prior to GW going over their heads?
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:19 AM on j-body.org
Why is Iraq so much of a threat to the US? You would think we'd be more after Osama who ACTUALLY caused us harm in the first place. I agree that Bush got sidetracked and found a way to finish daddys war.

And here we are 4 years later, no WMD, and more importantly, no Osama
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:42 AM on j-body.org
mw10bvh wrote:I have a question for everyone because I dont remember off the top of my head...

What was the United Nations stance on Iraqs possesion of WMD prior to GW going over their heads?



Google is your friend, that info is readily available for everyone to read.
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:15 AM on j-body.org
mrgto wrote:The premece of the war, if you actually READ Res. 1441, was to make sure they complied with the Cease Fire agreement...they didn't for 12 years.

Ask yourself this question...is it plausible to think they would bury and hide WMD if in fact they would bury conventional weapons? Ask yourself WHY would they bury those things.

Every day they find unexploded munitions in Europe from WWI and WWII. We will be finding stuff in Iraq long after all of us are part of this earth. That is my point.
They were handled nonetheless.

CBRN installations are not easily buried... Figure a Trident ICBM Installation takes 18 months to make the hole, install the facilities, and load the missile... you don't do something like that without overhead eyes seeing. Also, CBRN installations are notoriously hard to hide (if you look at McMichael's AFB in Colorado (it's the USAF's Chemical Weapons facility) on an environmental assessment map, it's a GREEN BLOB). When was the last time you saw a nuclear enrichment facility? A materials assembly plant? You don't hide that kind of thing in a weekend with a backloader. Even 45 years after a base has been moved, there are chemical tracers in the soil that linger... If there was such a thing after 1991, it's not hard to find.

Suffice it to say, after 1992, Iraq didn't have the ability to hide what they had, let alone build up a supposed stockpile of WMD's.

Again, Conventional weapons weren't the premise for the war.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:02 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

We will be finding stuff in Iraq long after all of us are part of this earth. That is my point.


I agree




Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:07 PM on j-body.org
Quick question then I'll go. Doesn't anyone but Mr. GTO believe it would be rather easy to bury those fabled WMD's in the desert and just wait till Saddam could make a return? I mean come on guys you believe the govt covered up the killing of thousands of Americans on 9/11 but its beyond your ability to comprehend how easy it is to bury and lose these WMD's in a desert the size of Cali. ? COME ON !! And you say I'm blind, hello pot here how are you today kettle ?

Tell you what, I'll stop ever asking you for proof of the govt cover up of 9/11 if you stop
asking where the WMD's are. Deal ? If not then start prooving our govt had anything to do with 9/11. And in the mean time we'll keep looking for those WMD's




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.



Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:14 PM on j-body.org
Since it seems like some of you forgot Operation Desert Storm was not "daddys dirty work" or "daddys war", It was a concerted effort by America and our allies to expell Saddams forces from Kuwait. When you say "Daddys war" it seems you are implying that war too was unjust. And of course we know how you feel about the current war in Iraq.
So just so i can understand better, can you please explain to me how the world would be better if we had never done anything about Saddam? Right now Saddam would still be in Kuwait ruining their country, erasing their history, enslaving/killing their people. Not to mention he would have access to a huge port. In addition to that He would probably still be up to his traditional murdering of his own people, stealing the money from the exports of his own country to build his own personal palaces, and keeping his people in constant fear for their lives. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to find any WMDs. ya know why? because we found Saddam and he IS a weapon of mass destruction. He is not a nice person. he is not your best friend. He is an arsehole. Would you want Saddam to be running your country? I think not.

Steve


My other car is an interceptor.
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:48 PM on j-body.org
If I am not mistaken the first war was backed by the UN as opposed to the second war which was opposed to by the UN is a big enough issue for me. GW decided to recruit the few countries that he could find and went on his merry way. This to me is a pretty big issue and shows complete irresponsibility on his part.
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:57 PM on j-body.org
Steve you will never make these people understand that. BTW they are all excelent points, well said. These are the types of people that believe it was wrong to remove Saddam they think what he did doesn't invovle us so why should we bother. Unfortunatly they have learned absolutly nothing from history, and as the saying goes those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Germany 1930 something
a little mad man named Hitler is slowly taking over and then one day invades another small country and starts WWII. Now fast forward 50 some odd years. A little mad man named Saddam Hussain is slowly takeing over and then one day invades another
small country AND WE ACT THIS TIME !! Thank God or who knows what would be going on now. We shouldn't have stopped till Saddam was dead the last time we were there but we did. Now all we are doing is finishing what we started.

All of you can poo poo my comparison all you want to but those that do are the ones who would have us sit back and wait till its too late. Then after countless thousands would be killed and the world crying out they would say Bush should have done something to stop him. You just can't make everyone happy.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.



Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:00 PM on j-body.org
mw10bvh wrote:If I am not mistaken the first war was backed by the UN as opposed to the second war which was opposed to by the UN is a big enough issue for me. GW decided to recruit the few countries that he could find and went on his merry way. This to me is a pretty big issue and shows complete irresponsibility on his part.
Let's also keep in mind that there is iron-clad proof now that the countries that opposed this war were those that were making BILLIONS in illegal dealings with Iraq. The administrations of those countries, members of UN committees, even the son of the head of the UN. And this is the organization we're supposed to trust to act in OUR best interest? I think not.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:05 PM on j-body.org
The UN wanted us to go in the first Gulf War and when Bush and the mean Neo Cons wanted to finish the job and oust Saddam. The UN told us that the job was done Saddam is out of Kuwaitt time to end the war.

The UN didn't want us to go in? Not exactly Most countried in the UN wanted us to go In. All it takes is 1 Veto from the UN Security Council. Can we say France and Russia wich had ties to the Oil for Food Scandal






Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:12 PM on j-body.org
Holy crap we actualy agree !! I think its going to snow.


Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.



Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:38 PM on j-body.org
I dont disagree that the goings on in the UN were shady there is no arguement for that. However that doesnt mean that Bush isnt just as shady. Saddam is a bad man there is no argument about that. One thing I will say is that he is one of many that have done horrible things to the people in their own country. What about the genocides going on in Africa right now? The agenda of this War in Iraq has changed how many times now? First it was WMD then it was the terrorists were there then it was we need to oust Saddam then bring democracy to the region. Not sure if that is all of them or if they are in the right order or not I could have gotten them confused there has been so many different ones I have lost track. These kinds of actions and lack of owning up to the mistake we made are the actions of grade school children not world leaders. It has been pass the blame central with this administration that is what really bothers me.
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:59 PM on j-body.org
US Congress and what they want to do in Africa

Like said earlier Saddam had 12 years to comply with the cease fire aggrement he signed after the first War. Atleast the US has the balls to stick to their word.

Also This is what Bush said about Iraq in his State of the Union Address January 18, 2003

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html



Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:29 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

What about the genocides going on in Africa


We tried to deal with one of those, until Clinton withdrew after a battle that killed 18 Americans.




Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:36 PM on j-body.org
Woulda been nice if Dubya did the same in Iraq
Re: GEORGE BUSH
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:00 PM on j-body.org
I dont understand that way of thinking.



Re: GEORGE BUSH
Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:57 AM on j-body.org
JimmyZ wrote:Let's also keep in mind that there is iron-clad proof now that the countries that opposed this war were those that were making BILLIONS in illegal dealings with Iraq. The administrations of those countries, members of UN committees, even the son of the head of the UN. And this is the organization we're supposed to trust to act in OUR best interest? I think not.


Canada was against the war in Iraq and had no interests to protect.

Nfamous:
What happened in the African Peace-Keeping missions was a UN operation, the US rotated out.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.


Re: GEORGE BUSH
Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:29 AM on j-body.org
So aside from a renewed anger toward the US from the mid-east, and a crop of new enemies, what benefit has this war provided to the people of the US?

The only thing I can think of is the possibility of securing oil reserves. Of course that will not be reflected at the pump, so was it really a benefit?

PAX
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search