I said it before and I'll say it again: OMG!!! He had an airplane!!! ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Of course they missed their targets, but then they were sent to destinations picked by the never inaccurate US intelligence services, you know the ones that said that Hussein had acquired masses of WMD (where are they again?).

Do you know what editorializing is, Bobby?

Haven't you seen the quotes from the Russians, the Tchermanns, the French, and swarms of them from the Democrats as well? All of the intelligence agencies, Western and otherwise believed that. Many of them believed that what wasn't found was destroyed. Mostly because not only did he have the stuff, he USED THE STUFF, against Halabja and Iran among others.

The intelligence agencies said he had these too. Of course, he said he didn't, he said he destroyed them as well. Is this an oops? Which would you have destroyed, the relatively easily replaceable chemicals? Or would you just have gone ahead and destroyed the utterly irreplaceable MiGs?

Sand Trap.

Yeah, I heard the other comments, I also heard the ones coming from the UN inspectors on the ground, I chose to listen to the guys that were actually there looking than those acting on motives that were not as clear. As for the MiG(s), woohoo, that was worth the lost lives and $billions wasn't it?

Halabja and Iran? Good grief, if these boards were here in the 80s I would've been posting about that and wondering why the West did nothing but watch. The chemicals used then were worthless by 2003 as the various experts interviewed in Uncovered: The War on Iraq testify.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Yeah, the world smiles when Clinton ignored embassy and battleship bombings, Bush takes the war to their homeland and the world frowns....like we care

Ignored by sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan? Of course they missed their targets, but then they were sent to destinations picked by the never inaccurate US intelligence services, you know the ones that said that Hussein had acquired masses of WMD (where are they again?).

You mean these?

*1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
*1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
*17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
*Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
*Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency


Not to mention the UN offered an official apology to the United States with photographic evidence that they allowed components of other WMD to "slip" through their fingers.

BTW, a couple of cruise missiles launched at an aspirin factory isn't close to an appropriate response to a declaration of war against our country and it's citizens.

---

The chemicals used then were worthless by 2003 as the various experts interviewed in Uncovered: The War on Iraq testify.

So what you're saying is that you have SOOOOOOO much faith in our government that you would let them lock you in a room with nerve gas they deemed "worthless", right?

That's called a lie, Bobby.

---

Yeah, I heard the other comments, I also heard the ones coming from the UN inspectors on the ground, I chose to listen to the guys that were actually there looking than those acting on motives that were not as clear. As for the MiG(s), woohoo, that was worth the lost lives and $billions wasn't it?

Ah, you "chose to listen," interesting. So, if you can understand why you chose to listen to one source, you can understand why others (the gov'ts of the U.S., much of the Middle East, Germany, and France, et al) chose to listen to other sources as well. Why? Because there was a reason those UN inspectors were there and had not given up and gone home. That reason was that Iraq was playing a shell game with their weapons. Hussein was not forthcoming with what had happened to his weapons, he just kinda said he destroyed them, but kinda forgot when, and where, and how.

As for the MiGs, and since you missed it, the point was not that they were worth lost lives and money, or even that they counted as WMDs. The point was that Hussein said the exact same things about those that he did about the WMDs. They were destroyed, they were gone, he got rid of them after the Gulf War, blah, blah, blah. When in reality, he did not. He buried them in order to save them from destruction.

So, if he lied and prevaricated about those, and if he had and had used the WMD weapons he had and was accused of having; it is then reasonable, given the intelligence assessments of the various agencies and the opinions of various gov'ts, to expect that his denials were hollow and that he had protected such items from destruction.

Halabja and Iran? Good grief, if these boards were here in the 80s I would've been posting about that and wondering why the West did nothing but watch. The chemicals used then were worthless by 2003 as the various experts interviewed in Uncovered: The War on Iraq testify.

That those exact chemicals would have been worthless in 2003 does not mean that he would not have replaced them, or created the facilities for doing so. No one was searching to find weapons from WWII, they were searching to find out what he had done with them, and if he had procured the ability to make more of them. Like it or not, chlorine gas is not that hard to make.

As an aside, since you commented on the West "[doing] nothing but watch," how exactly would you have prevented such a thing? A vigorous complaint to the U.N? An invasion? Removal from power? Or a good talking to? Given that he almost universally and repeatedly ignored the first and the last suggestions, your options become quite limited.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Yeah, I heard the other comments, I also heard the ones coming from the UN inspectors on the ground, I chose to listen to the guys that were actually there looking than those acting on motives that were not as clear. As for the MiG(s), woohoo, that was worth the lost lives and $billions wasn't it?

Ah, you "chose to listen," interesting. So, if you can understand why you chose to listen to one source, you can understand why others (the gov'ts of the U.S., much of the Middle East, Germany, and France, et al) chose to listen to other sources as well. Why? Because there was a reason those UN inspectors were there and had not given up and gone home. That reason was that Iraq was playing a shell game with their weapons. Hussein was not forthcoming with what had happened to his weapons, he just kinda said he destroyed them, but kinda forgot when, and where, and how.

As for the MiGs, and since you missed it, the point was not that they were worth lost lives and money, or even that they counted as WMDs. The point was that Hussein said the exact same things about those that he did about the WMDs. They were destroyed, they were gone, he got rid of them after the Gulf War, blah, blah, blah. When in reality, he did not. He buried them in order to save them from destruction.

So, if he lied and prevaricated about those, and if he had and had used the WMD weapons he had and was accused of having; it is then reasonable, given the intelligence assessments of the various agencies and the opinions of various gov'ts, to expect that his denials were hollow and that he had protected such items from destruction.

Halabja and Iran? Good grief, if these boards were here in the 80s I would've been posting about that and wondering why the West did nothing but watch. The chemicals used then were worthless by 2003 as the various experts interviewed in Uncovered: The War on Iraq testify.

That those exact chemicals would have been worthless in 2003 does not mean that he would not have replaced them, or created the facilities for doing so. No one was searching to find weapons from WWII, they were searching to find out what he had done with them, and if he had procured the ability to make more of them. Like it or not, chlorine gas is not that hard to make.

As an aside, since you commented on the West "[doing] nothing but watch," how exactly would you have prevented such a thing? A vigorous complaint to the U.N? An invasion? Removal from power? Or a good talking to? Given that he almost universally and repeatedly ignored the first and the last suggestions, your options become quite limited.

Perhaps we need a different thread, I suspect we're getting close to hijacking this one (if we're not there already).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Perhaps we need a different thread, I suspect we're getting close to hijacking this one (if we're not there already).

I was just about to post not to worry about it as your conversation was interesting and I am sure that we will get back on topic sooner or later...but it seems Gone has just taken us back on topic with some examples that show how 'street' Hilary is. LOL.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Perhaps we need a different thread, I suspect we're getting close to hijacking this one (if we're not there already).

I was just about to post not to worry about it as your conversation was interesting and I am sure that we will get back on topic sooner or later...but it seems Gone has just taken us back on topic with some examples that show how 'street' Hilary is. LOL.

and THAT is good - the 'street' and as well - 'street smart' she be @ that (referrin' to Hilary . . .) ;)

nice one Gone - it'd be interestin' - if - as President - Hilary were to give Broadcasts from the House Press Meets - using said language - THAT would place the US on the TOP of ALL Media eh . . . ;))))

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

And I can fully understand her being totally fed up with these Secret Service bodyguard guys.
They do nothing than stand around just for the case (may the threat be real or not), and instead of being a Gentleman and helping the woman, she has to carry them all and the strong men stand aside doing nothing, just for the case of a incident? Sorry, what a lame excuse.

WTF? A real fighter could have both hands busy and their sight restricted and would still be able to defend their and their client's life. Don't they learn in the Secret Service that bags and boxes are no obstacle in the case of a fight but can be used not only as shield but as a weapon, too? Have you ever seen what a dangerous thing even a handbag can be in the "wrong" hands?

What have we become...

---

Account frozen...

Hillary! Uncensored - Banned By The Media

---

And I can fully understand her being totally fed up with these Secret Service bodyguard guys.
They do nothing than stand around just for the case (may the threat be real or not), and instead of being a Gentleman and helping the woman, she has to carry them all and the strong men stand aside doing nothing, just for the case of a incident? Sorry, what a lame excuse.

WTF? A real fighter could have both hands busy and their sight restricted and would still be able to defend their and their client's life. Don't they learn in the Secret Service that bags and boxes are no obstacle in the case of a fight but can be used not only as shield but as a weapon, too? Have you ever seen what a dangerous thing even a handbag can be in the "wrong" hands?

What have we become...

LOL..

..actually my sister's father in law used to be one of those guys that guard the president. He's retired now..but maybe I should ask him what he thinks of Hilary's outbursts. :D

---

Reality Internet Personality

Secret Service members only have one mission: To take a bullet... ;)

(Just thought I'd point that out.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

It's really hard for me, as a non-US citizen to figure out if the right thing to do is or ???

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

It's really hard for me, as a non-US citizen to figure out if the right thing to do is or ???

Go with the tomatoes. That woman scares the BeJeebus out of me. I'm moving to France.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

That woman scares the BeJeebus out of me.

What's a BeJeebus? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Wow, that calculator looks interesting.

Es99, good luck. I guess Hilary is just the better of two evils. In the end you vote corporate America either way...

Influence of money on elections should be minimized, but the question is how.

I don't have to vote corporate America at all. I live in the UK. We get corporate America what ever we do.

Ooops :p
Seems you are right, though. Wonder where the UK will head when Labour looses the next elections.

That woman scares the BeJeebus out of me.

What's a BeJeebus? ;)

It's what the BeeGee's tour in.

---

Wow, that calculator looks interesting.

Es99, good luck. I guess Hilary is just the better of two evils. In the end you vote corporate America either way...

Influence of money on elections should be minimized, but the question is how.

I don't have to vote corporate America at all. I live in the UK. We get corporate America what ever we do.

Ooops :p
Seems you are right, though. Wonder where the UK will head when Labour looses the next elections.

Hmm, don't start counting those Cameron chickens just yet. There's been an issue (understatement I know) with some mortgage lenders, and that has given a few the jitters, but there's still time for the economy to turn to Brown's favor again, and if there's one thing the British electorate do it's vote back in the people that keep the economy on course.

Back to Hilary, the US economy doesn't seem to be doing terribly badly at the moment, and maybe Bush is hoping that's enough to get the Republican base back out to vote. I'm not so sure, trade deficits and continuing imbalances in the Federal budget surely can't continue without some detrimental effect on the US economy and, perhaps, the US public may realize this and vote in somebody who lived in the White House while the Federal budget showed a surplus ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Wow, that calculator looks interesting.

Es99, good luck. I guess Hilary is just the better of two evils. In the end you vote corporate America either way...

Influence of money on elections should be minimized, but the question is how.

I don't have to vote corporate America at all. I live in the UK. We get corporate America what ever we do.

Ooops :p
Seems you are right, though. Wonder where the UK will head when Labour looses the next elections.

Hmm, don't start counting those Cameron chickens just yet. There's been an issue (understatement I know) with some mortgage lenders, and that has given a few the jitters, but there's still time for the economy to turn to Brown's favor again, and if there's one thing the British electorate do it's vote back in the people that keep the economy on course.

Back to Hilary, the US economy doesn't seem to be doing terribly badly at the moment, and maybe Bush is hoping that's enough to get the Republican base back out to vote. I'm not so sure, trade deficits and continuing imbalances in the Federal budget surely can't continue without some detrimental effect on the US economy and, perhaps, the US public may realize this and vote in somebody who lived in the White House while the Federal budget showed a surplus ...

Perhaps not when she wants to Nationalize one of the largest segments of the US economy in the history of the nation. And especially not so when spending is now under relative control with the Republicans.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Wow, that calculator looks interesting.

Es99, good luck. I guess Hilary is just the better of two evils. In the end you vote corporate America either way...

Influence of money on elections should be minimized, but the question is how.

I don't have to vote corporate America at all. I live in the UK. We get corporate America what ever we do.

Ooops :p
Seems you are right, though. Wonder where the UK will head when Labour looses the next elections.

Hmm, don't start counting those Cameron chickens just yet. There's been an issue (understatement I know) with some mortgage lenders, and that has given a few the jitters, but there's still time for the economy to turn to Brown's favor again, and if there's one thing the British electorate do it's vote back in the people that keep the economy on course.

Back to Hilary, the US economy doesn't seem to be doing terribly badly at the moment, and maybe Bush is hoping that's enough to get the Republican base back out to vote. I'm not so sure, trade deficits and continuing imbalances in the Federal budget surely can't continue without some detrimental effect on the US economy and, perhaps, the US public may realize this and vote in somebody who lived in the White House while the Federal budget showed a surplus ...

Perhaps not when she wants to Nationalize one of the largest segments of the US economy in the history of the nation. And especially not so when spending is now under relative control with the Republicans.

Do you call costs of the war in Iraq under control...?

---

Account frozen...