So we have been in Iraq for how long now? We havent found anything in regards to the WMD that we said was there. Is anyone else really scared that everyone was so wrong. How is it that with all of the techknowledgy and resources that we have that we were this wrong? How scary is it that our intelligency community was so wrong? What else have they been wrong about. What else will they be wrong about in the future. This is a colosal size #$#@ up and we are going to pay dearly for it.

Jackalope, Clinton had the same information and didn't start a war, scroll up a little, that's what I've said.

And yes, I agree everyone (except Canada) believed Saddam had WMD's. And yes, he may still have them hidden somewhere we haven't looked yet.

My point is, and has always been, What gives the US the right to determine who gets to have weapons and who doesn't? (read my other posts, I've never deviated from this)

Yes, he agreed to UN inspections as part of his surrender from Kuwait.
Yes, he made inspections difficult at best.
If you lived in an area where war was happening all around you, would you want your neighboring countries knowing exactly what weapons you had and where they were? That would be a serious strategic problem if they were attacked.

The UN didn't invade Iraq, the USA invaded Iraq. We were in that part of the world looking for the terrorist group that flew planes into buildings, gave up that search and went after Saddam.

If this is such a great contribution to achieving peace, why aren't other countries coming to our side and helping?

Canada has the right idea regarding world politics... "We're here, you're there, let's keep it that way. Call us, stop by for a visit and check out our casinos"

There weren't any planes flying into buildings in Canada on 9/11. I believe it's because Canada doesn't stick it's nose in where it doesn't belong, like the US does.












John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

John Wilken wrote:Jackalope, Clinton had the same information and didn't start a war, scroll up a little, that's what I've said.

And yes, I agree everyone (except Canada) believed Saddam had WMD's. And yes, he may still have them hidden somewhere we haven't looked yet.

My point is, and has always been, What gives the US the right to determine who gets to have weapons and who doesn't? (read my other posts, I've never deviated from this)

Yes, he agreed to UN inspections as part of his surrender from Kuwait.
Yes, he made inspections difficult at best.
If you lived in an area where war was happening all around you, would you want your neighboring countries knowing exactly what weapons you had and where they were? That would be a serious strategic problem if they were attacked.

The UN didn't invade Iraq, the USA invaded Iraq. We were in that part of the world looking for the terrorist group that flew planes into buildings, gave up that search and went after Saddam.

If this is such a great contribution to achieving peace, why aren't other countries coming to our side and helping?

Canada has the right idea regarding world politics... "We're here, you're there, let's keep it that way. Call us, stop by for a visit and check out our casinos"

There weren't any planes flying into buildings in Canada on 9/11. I believe it's because Canada doesn't stick it's nose in where it doesn't belong, like the US does.

Clinton didn't have the stones to do anything...he was more concerned with his poll numbers than defending this nation.

Uh, part of the Cease Fire Agreement stated Saddam had to destroy his weapons and his weapons programs. He did neither.

Difficult at best? Are you mentally deranged? He wouldn't let inspectors in for 4 years. Even I could bury a hell of a lot of SH!T in 4 years.

Why aren't other countries helping? Because they are scared of getting attacked by Al Queda. Simple as that. They don't ahve the stones to stand up to terrorists. Select few do.

So the US sticks it's nose into places it should uh? that is your reason Al Queda attacked us on 9/11 and every other time? IS that your final answer or do you want to elaborate it for us a little bit more....

mrgto: When was the last time you saw environmental sampling being done? You can find out where the sites are (even underground) by sampling the air. If there were new ones, you could find them. If the nuclear programme was started, you could find it from space.

He didn't let inspectors in for 4 years... great... he was complying up to the dead line, when UN inspectors were ordered to evacuate. Anyhow, you could bury a lot of stuff in 4 years, but you couldn't hide it... CBRN facilities send up huge plumes of heat and active particles, you could find them even underground, in the 60's. You don't move that kind of earth without arousing some suspicion. How do you think the mass-graves were found in Yugoslavia? Before you start saying that you can bury stuff, consider the scale, and the detection technology.

Other countries aren't afraid of attacking al-quaeda, pickign your battles before you get lured into an uphill battle is a better strategy... like... Finishing the job in Afghanistan, and finding the real bad-guy... Usama Bin Laden.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:mrgto: When was the last time you saw environmental sampling being done? You can find out where the sites are (even underground) by sampling the air. If there were new ones, you could find them. If the nuclear programme was started, you could find it from space.

He didn't let inspectors in for 4 years... great... he was complying up to the dead line, when UN inspectors were ordered to evacuate. Anyhow, you could bury a lot of stuff in 4 years, but you couldn't hide it... CBRN facilities send up huge plumes of heat and active particles, you could find them even underground, in the 60's. You don't move that kind of earth without arousing some suspicion. How do you think the mass-graves were found in Yugoslavia? Before you start saying that you can bury stuff, consider the scale, and the detection technology.

Other countries aren't afraid of attacking al-quaeda, pickign your battles before you get lured into an uphill battle is a better strategy... like... Finishing the job in Afghanistan, and finding the real bad-guy... Usama Bin Laden.

Were you asleep when the US Military found his underground bunkers that were previously unknown? Plenty can be done without detection. We know this from what NK and Iran have already done.

LOL, he was complying up to the deadline uh? That's why the UN just pulled them out all on their own uh?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/15/un.iraq/

They found bunkers, NOT stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

To anyone who actually believed that Iraq ever had nukes, do you really think Israel would let them? They tried once, in 81 or 82... let's just say the F-16's first taste of combat was not at the hands of America.




"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."

Craig: that was Iran

mrgto: Thanks for the article link from 1998. I was talking at the deadline in 2003. You're only off by 5 years. Good on ya.

And, those bunkers that were stumbled upon, the were exposed at sometime... are you that dense to not realise that Iraq is one of the top 5 most surveilled nations on earth? Hussein couldn't go from city to city (above ground) without someone at Langley AFB knowing about it.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/23/iraq.main/index.html

Another fine decision by the "war president." Anyone wanna bet on a new round of terrorist attacks in the green zone?



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

( sigh ) Mr. GTO, you must realize that you are talking to very far left leaning liberals and even tho the whole world said he had WMD's they wanted more sanctions and more time for the inspectors to find whatever they were allowed to find by Saddam.
Don't forget Gam & John the inspectors were repeatedly denied access to wherever they wanted to go. They were led by armed security forces to where Saddam said they could go. This went on for how many years? And the spineless UN just sat back and gave more warnings that were NEVER heeded. Someone HAD to eventually stand up and say enough. I realize that you think its wrong for the US to stick its nose where it doesn't belong but please don't forget that when any sh-t hits the fan who gets called?
WE DO. So that gives us the right to step in and stop the sh-t before it hits the fan.

And yes Clinton did know what was going on but he was so worried about his political carrier that was already in the toilet that he dare not do anything controversial. May I remind you of the U.S.S. COLE how many sailors dead ? And a teary eyed Bill on TV vowing before the American people he would catch whoever did this. That was how long ago?

Nope sorry I for one am glad we finally got a president that could man up and do something rather then turn his back to whatever problems are out there. Has he made mistakes? Sure has but you know what ? That only proves hes a man and not the God almighty that apparently you all think the US president is supposed to be.






Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Ummm I thought Clinton launched cruise missles into Iraq... Maybe I am confused but I seem to remember that for some reason.... I think the thing that is most disturbing is what Gam has said. We have the techknowledgy to find some of this stuff from space and the rest of it can be pretty easily found by other means. It is just really scary that the entire world can be wrong about something like this. Comparing Saddam to Hitler? We had some pretty solid proof that Hitler was up to no good we had accusations and beliefs that Saddam was up to no good.

Jackalope wrote:( sigh ) And yes Clinton did know what was going on but he was so worried about his political carrier that was already in the toilet that he dare not do anything controversial. May I remind you of the U.S.S. COLE how many sailors dead ? And a teary eyed Bill on TV vowing before the American people he would catch whoever did this. That was how long ago?

I'm glad you brought up the USS Cole, because the terrorists involved were found and they are presently behind bars or sentenced to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2000_bombing_of_the_USS_Cole
from that link: "a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing. Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at an undisclosed location. Al-Badawi, in Yemeni custody, denounced the verdict as "an American one." Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack."

And let's not forget, the USS Cole was a military target, the WTC was civilian. The Cole could be considered a threat, the WTC was just offices.

Jackalope wrote:Nope sorry I for one am glad we finally got a president that could man up and do something rather then turn his back to whatever problems are out there. Has he made mistakes? Sure has but you know what ? That only proves hes a man and not the God almighty that apparently you all think the US president is supposed to be.

Jackalope, how can you dismiss overthrowing a countries government, imprisoning it's leader, shooting it's people, burning buildings, destroying historical landmarks at the cost of countless lives as just "a mistake"? This was a vandetta Bush had and chose to settle.

As far as Bush turning his back on "whatever problems are out there'", there are worse issues in Africa and other countries. What has Bush done about it? Nothing. What did Bush do about the natural disasters that happened in his own country? Too little, too late. What is Bush doing now? Watching as history will not remember him as a great leader. His legacy will be as an irrational punk who started a war because he wanted to.






John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Quote:

Craig: that was Iran

No, that was Iraq

Israeli attack on Osirak





"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."

Quote:

When we went in Iraq we had what we thought at the time was 100% correct intell about his involvement with terrorists and his WMD's.

That's a lie. How convenient for everyone to forget the War Memo that was a hot topic not long ago, just like Osama, and both are now just faded away with the past.

To prove your assertion along with many others wrong...here you go.

Memo


"Speak the truth, and leave immediately after"
"The urge to save Humanity is almost ALWAYS a false front for the urge to rule"
"He who knoweth things as they are and not as they are said or seem to be, he truly is wise, and is taught of God more than of men."

Here's a better link to the attack:

attack





"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."

Chamillionaire wrote:That's a lie. How convenient for everyone to forget the War Memo that was a hot topic not long ago, just like Osama, and both are now just faded away with the past.

To prove your assertion along with many others wrong...here you go.

Memo

/\/\/\ X2. No WMD's. Bush wanted to go after Saddam and wasn't going to stop for any reason, especially the truth.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Jackalope wrote:( sigh ) Mr. GTO, you must realize that you are talking to very far left leaning liberals

Coming from you, that's a compliment... I didn't know you had such good eyesight from that Right Wing over there

mrgto's been around the board but remarkably quiet in the last while.

Quote:

and even tho the whole world said he had WMD's they wanted more sanctions and more time for the inspectors to find whatever they were allowed to find by Saddam.

After 1992, the sum total of Iraq's WMD machine existing before 1991 was dismantled, and there might have been small amounts left over, but not enough to be the over-hyped threat that Bush and company was crowing about. More on this in a minute.

Quote:


Don't forget Gam & John the inspectors were repeatedly denied access to wherever they wanted to go. They were led by armed security forces to where Saddam said they could go. This went on for how many years? And the spineless UN just sat back and gave more warnings that were NEVER heeded.

Jack, this isn't personal against you, please don't take it the wrong way, but frankly, you're dead wrong, and if you have a few minutes, I'll break it down for you, because this is a very long standing myth that has to be addressed. You have been getting your information from utterly biased sources that have been eager to sell you the party line or lose access to the Whitehouse, I'll give you the wider perspective... you decide for yourself.


In the 6 months previous to the invasion, the UN inspectors got unfettered and unannounced access... this wasn't enough apparently.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.cnna/ <-- Iraq told to grant unfettered access

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq <-- long, but useful timeline, well referenced, and, even contextualised links that relate history back to the point (Click on the date for the context). I'll use the condensed histories to make my point, but the whole site is worth the look.

Iraq gave unimpeded access from summer 2002 all the way up to invasion.

Iraq gives UN inspectors unmonitored access to Iraqi scientists.

IAEA Chief says Iraq not likely able to hide a complete Nuclear weapons programme.

Co-operation? Ahem? mrgto, please, answer me... was this not full co-operation? (If you are stopped by a police officer, and are instructed to surrender your license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance... and you do that, should the police officer arrest you on the spot?)

What does this state about your "Front-loader theory?"

How, might you (or Ari Fleischer), someone that has not been schooled (or even to my knowledge bothered to read a bit about the CBRN detection sciences) in the process of examining and contextualising evidence, come to the definitive conclusion that there were, in fact, outlawed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, given that you don't know about current or past detection methods?

Please. I welcome your input, because you haven't made it clear other than you've bought, hook-line-and-sinker, the Bush Administration's party line...

If you really don't believe the timeline (that is referenced to newswire services), google the Duelfer or ISG reports. The idea that there were WMD's in Iraq is a sham, and the Bush administration was itching for a scrap, without fully comprehending the ramifications of unilateral invasion.. YES UNILATERAL. The tenents of Res 1441 were fulfilled by Iraq in full, without compromise, and the US and UK STILL invaded.

Quote:

Someone HAD to eventually stand up and say enough.

Enough of what exactly? Hussein co-operated... fully. They had no CBRN weapons (of any number approaching what was being touted by Colin Powell), and no programs to develop such weapons. I'm not pointing out anything new, unknown, or recently uncovered.

Quote:

I realize that you think its wrong for the US to stick its nose where it doesn't belong but please don't forget that when any sh-t hits the fan who gets called?
WE DO. So that gives us the right to step in and stop the sh-t before it hits the fan.

No, it gives you the right to have your nose cut off when your leadership doesn't know when to reign themselves in.

Also, the rest of the world would have had no problem supporting a US led invasion if Iraq was in fact, beligerant. If there were overt maneuvers to attack any of the neighbouring countries, you wouldn't hear me saying a word against it... IF there were infact anything substantive other than the posturings of a world-stage politically impotent leader at evidence.

Quote:

And yes Clinton did know what was going on but he was so worried about his political carrier that was already in the toilet that he dare not do anything controversial. May I remind you of the U.S.S. COLE how many sailors dead ? And a teary eyed Bill on TV vowing before the American people he would catch whoever did this. That was how long ago?

The USS Cole bombing happend so late in Clinton's presidency, nothing could have been done with the military to remedy, or take reprisals. Keep in mind, UBL's whereabouts were not substantially known, and they didn't want a repeat of the 1998 retailiations for the Embassy bombings.

Quote:

Nope sorry I for one am glad we finally got a president that could man up and do something rather then turn his back to whatever problems are out there. Has he made mistakes? Sure has but you know what ? That only proves hes a man and not the God almighty that apparently you all think the US president is supposed to be.

He's shown that he cannot exercise restraint, good judgment, or patience. There was little restraint from the moment after Afghanistan's invasion was complete, to the day troops began massing in Saudi Arabia. There was no credible intelligence regarding any of the intelligence that was coming in regarding Iraq's WMD programs, good judgment would have dictated that you either confirm and mount up, or negate and stand-down. Given that Iraq was complying, patience would have been prudent so UN inspectors could do their JOBS.

You've got a proud straight-C student at the seat of political, military and financial power of your nation, and the west, and that doesn't bother you? You fete his mistakes, and proclaim that he's just a regular guy, so let him have his mistakes, even when:
- you are on the hook for the bill for every dollar mis-spent in Iraq, when it could be used in REAL trouble spots,
- the previous president made "mistakes" as well, but after he was exonerated of the charges, you still take every opportunity to deride him?

How the hell do you square that with yourself? That's like an alcoholic parent that beats their kids when they're loud, and beats them harder to shut them up when they start crying.

Pardon me, but that is utter hypocrisy.

I don't want an every-man as the leader of my country, or any other country for that matter. A non-sophistocate underachiever, who gets by on luck and charm (and well heeled backers that keep score) just doesn't a good leader or statesman, make. I'm sorry, I want to see someone that has conviction, integrity, wits and ability to govern, and Bush just doesn't come close to meeting muster in any of those categories.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

craig steele wrote:

Quote:

Craig: that was Iran

No, that was Iraq

Israeli attack on Osirak

Whoops! My bad.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

( shakes head and throws up hands ) I give up its like talking to a wall ! You guys are shown where your hero Clinton efed just like the rest of the world and you try to turn things back onto only Bush. You can argue samantics all you want to but the undeniable FACT remains that when we went into Iraq we along with 99% of the world thought he had WMD's. Thats the end of it ! We went in because of what we and everyone else thought he had thats why we are still there.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Ok Jackalope.... Lets say your right.... Lets say 99% of the rest of the world agreed that he had WMD.... So why is it that 99% of the world didnt offer to send troops? I mean if they were all so convinced that he was hiding WMD why would they not contribute troops to support their beliefs and the cause? If there was any contribution at all the nubers were extreemly low. This could be inpart due to the fact that the invasion was not authorized by the UN. Just a thought...

Excerpt for Wikedpedia

Quote:

United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. However, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later stated that the subsequent invasion was a violation of the UN Charter. Force was not authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences," which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to overthrow the government; however the threat of force, as cultivated by the Bush administration, was prominent at the time of the vote. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers," no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council [21]. Such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and their invasion of Iraq. Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, argued in November 2003, that the invasion was against international law, but still justified [22], [23]. There is still much disagreement among international lawyers on whether prior resolutions, relating to the 1991 war and later inspections, permitted the invasion.

So we admitted that it was Illegal but decided that we were allowed to break international law because our administration knew better than anyone else .

Jackalope wrote:( shakes head and throws up hands ) I give up its like talking to a wall ! You guys are shown where your hero Clinton efed just like the rest of the world and you try to turn things back onto only Bush.

Clinton is not my hero. Clinton didn't start a war based on rumor, Bush did. (yes, the information about WMD's was rumor, otherwise they would have found them) And where was the "rest of the world" when it came time to go to war? They weren't afraid, they were smarter than Bush. The UN hadn't authorized military action, so anyone (meaning BUSH) who sent troops was acting prematurely.

How many died for nothing as a result of Bush starting this war?

Jackalope wrote:You can argue samantics all you want to but the undeniable FACT remains that when we went into Iraq we along with 99% of the world thought he had WMD's. Thats the end of it !

Semantics? Scroll up, the accurate information was available, Bush chose to ignore any report that didn't give him reason to invade Iraq. That's a little more than semantics.

Jackalope wrote: We went in because of what we and everyone else thought he had thats why we are still there.

We invaded Iraq to settle a personal vandetta that Bush had, and we're still there to make sure whoever gets elected will be a "puppet" for the USA. If we left right now, there would be civil war there for a long time while they sorted it out on their own. We created a mess and we're trying to clean it up.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Jack: Read the links I posted. They all say, right along with the Iraq Survey Group report that there were no WMD. The "Yellow Cake" was BS from the start... the guy who said Iraq had been looking for enriched uranium and plutonium was an ex-patriate and never had occasion to know about any purchases.

The 99% of the world you're talking about, it works out to about maybe 10% in reality. If there was that kind of a consensus, this discussion wouldn't be happening. The countries that have committed troops to Iraq are doing so because either they have commitments in Iraq that were suspended after 1991, or they see a possibility to horn in on some cheap oil.

Seriously, Jack, read the links I've posted, at least in context. At least do me that favour. I'm not trying to turn around what you've said, it's been disproven, conclusively.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Last post here for me as you guys are a lost cause. Who remembers a certain X pres
Bill Clinton on TV with Dubya after 9/11 talking about how Saddam was in on 9/11 and helped carry it out and that Saddam has WMD's and he intends to use them on us.
Anyone ? Anyone at all ?



I do. Because I couldn't believe a Republican and Democrate were on live TV hugging and argeeing that we NEED to go to war.

Now true after we got there we found out all sortd of stuff was dead wrong but this is after the fact and this is why I'm calling you all a bunch of monday morning quaterbacks.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

This is just never going to stop is it? we tried fixing this problem through the UN since the end of desert storm. All this talk of Iraqs full cooperation is a bunch of bull. sure they cooperated for the six months prior to invasion, is'nt that the way it always goes? Saddam was just trying to weasel his way out of trouble again. Clinton did'nt start a war you are correct. He also did not prevent one either. He had numerous chances when he was in power to topple saddam, he even had a chance to arrest Muhamed Atta. He did nothing about either. The only time he did anything about Iraq was when he was taking to much heat for gettin a BJ so he had to find away to draw attention away from that whole dibacle.

While there may not have been %99 support, there was more countries behind us than most of you seem to want to believe. 34 countries to be exact. twas called the coalition of the willing. this website has plenty of info. [URL=www.pwhce.org/willing.html]http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html[/URL]

This coalition not only supported the military action against Saddam but did so with troops on the ground. By my calculation 23804 non US troops are currently operating in and around Iraq.


Even Canada has a presence in Iraq. 31 officers in exchange programs with the US and Britain, as well as 2 frigates in the area.

So you guys can think whatever you want but there was quite alot of support for this war. and there is still support for us to stay and finish the job.

later


Steve


My other car is an interceptor.

Steve, yes, the Canadians are attached to US units, but they're taking orders from the US/UK Military, just the same as the 75 US troops that are on exchange from the US/UK militaries with the Canadians. The Frigates are part of the Gulf patrol units that have been in the area since the beginning of the 1991 war.

And I had it wrong, actually. I'm big enough to admit it. Iraq was co-operating over a year before the invasion.



The 23,000+ troops are mostly British, and the rest are token support troops, I mean I think Chile sent 8 people... Seriously though, Clinton did the prudent thing, and kept the reigns tight on Saddam within what he could do that complied with international law, he didn't act as though the US is the world's police.

Jack: IF you're not going to post again, let me just say that leading up to the invasion, most people that don't listen to CNN or MSNBC, or even Fox, knew that the Nigerian yellow cake papers were a fraud, they knew that after Colin Powell and Dubya addressed the UNSecCon and UN Gen. Assembly, there were rebuttals that not only disproved the lies (and they were lies, not just fiction, fantasy or conjecture... lies) about the Yellow Cake Enriched uranium, but also denounced the USA for being as much a war monger as they claim Saddam was in 1991.

The British report that detailled the items was re-called by HMIS (MI6), over a month before Bush's Address. The Bush Admin claimed to have irrefutable proof of their claims, but never shared it with anyone.

I mean, call me crazy, but that's like on Wayne's World when Wayne writes on the back of the cue cards "this guy blows goats, I have proof," except theres no comedy. Read some of the links and you'll see that there was a real push on by the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq with or without any proof (real or anecdotal).

I've known about this stuff for at least 3 years... the proof of intent by the Bush Admin. is out there, plain as the nose on your face. The "proof" otherwise, is not just wanting, it's as real as Harry Potter.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

Now true after we got there we found out all sortd of stuff was dead wrong but this is after the fact and this is why I'm calling you all a bunch of monday morning quaterbacks.

Because everything you have stated in this thread, for the most part, has been false...we are Monday morning quarterbacks? You remind me of this quote:

Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power. ~P.J. O'Rourke



"Speak the truth, and leave immediately after"
"The urge to save Humanity is almost ALWAYS a false front for the urge to rule"
"He who knoweth things as they are and not as they are said or seem to be, he truly is wise, and is taught of God more than of men."