"it's not revenge, it's putting an end to it. really, who are you arguing with? yes, kuwaitis too. these are basic facts. what did you think my point was??? maybe you find it ridiculous that i think they still matter after 13 years? " So, that's your reason for invading Iraq? OK, now we know. Thanks for making that clear. Dumb idea, like saying the Native AMericans should firebomb the Pentagon for all the atrocities and dead they suffered. Now wait, it would be more like saying the Bolivians should burn the Pentagon for all those deaths.

rbrooku wrote: "If you base your decision on that" So, I should base my decision on nasty, bitter invective and clear hatred?

"Still waiting for the evidence on the claims of yours that I questioned in my earlier post...or should I not even bother?" Email: [email protected] Ask and you shall receive. In abundance.

"your deadly attitude is that terrorist organizations are harmless unless we come across battleplans for their invasion of america." No, my battle plans call for conserving our forces and using them judiciously and effectively, not wasting them on partisan adventures.

"i'll do better than prove it, i'll have you email some guy named leo." OK, I'll post his daily research and rants for you, since (and remember this) YOU ASKED FOR IT: Well folks i believe we have some hard work ahead of us if i understand the Bush method of determining when America should embark on an invasion for the good of all mankind and promotion of democracy. If I have my facts straight the story goes like this. Now we know that Saddam was disarmed in 1991 and remained disarmed up to the day we invaded, so invasion of other countries need not be based on an actual threat. We can and will invade countries at the discretion of Mr. bush who have a very bad man as their leader and who might someday possibly be able to threaten us. There is and was no Iraq Al Queda link http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5412.shtml latest government report states iraq was not a threat http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq.html?hp Paul bremmer says we had inadequate plans for the invasion http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/politics/06troops.html The Center for American progress says pre emptive war is wrong http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=85070 we now use private mercenaries to hide what we are really doing http://blackwatersecurity.com/ Blackwater provides murder for hire on a grand scale "Blackwater USA is comprised of five companies; Blackwater Training Center, Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater Security Consulting, Blackwater Canine, and Blackwater Air (AWS). We have established a global presence and provide training and tactical solutions for the 21st century." Pentagon officials openly state we have at least 5 countries we might invade if the man with no lips is re elected http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/september2004/050904preemptive.htm August 19, Senior Pentagon policy official William Luti said there are at least five or six foreign countries with traits that "no responsible leader can allow," Time quoted sources as saying. So now that we are potentially set to follow the man with no lips into his vision of the future are we clear about the facts? It takes no far stretch of the imagination to determine that the number of people in our military which now is impossibly inadequate will get worse. Paul bremmer a distinguished man stated without hesitation we have inadequate troop levels in Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/politics/06troops.html So I would presume absent a 300% increase in voluntary enlistments (enlistments are dropping like a stone) we are going to be short about 30 divisions and we will need about 300,000 more combat troops than we are currently able to get in the field. The administration insists that we have no plans for a draft. Why then pray tell are they putting together the necessary staff for all the draft boards previously disbanded to be re opened? i can only think of one reason that draft boards would be created, so we can draft young Americans into the military right after the election. Also though it gets no discussion in the news we are building 14 very large and permanent military bases in Iraq, these bases are capable of maintaining 150,000 US troops in Iraq "PERMANENTLY". So much for the claim by the Bush team we are not there permanently. So my friends knowing that we are set to Invade Iran and probably Syria if the man with no lips is re elected are you prepared to provide America your children for the next 2 wars? we will need to draft 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops in order to get 300,000 in the field of battle. CIA report refutes Bush claims on lraq-al Qaeda link By Staff and Wire Reports Oct 6, 2004, 03:02 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5412.shtml Even with intense pressure from the Bush Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency report found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - a link the administration claimed was established before the invasion of Iraq. "There's no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi," a U.S. official said on Tuesday about the CIA findings contained in a new report. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the new report, a mix of new information and a look at some older information, did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions. "To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said in confirming an ABC News story about the CIA report that the network said was delivered to the White House last week. ABC quoted an unnamed senior U.S. official as saying that the CIA document raises "serious questions" about Bush administration assertions that Zarqawi found sanctuary in pre-war Baghdad. "The official says there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad," ABC reported. The CIA report concludes Zarqawi was in and out

"Well folks i believe we have some hard work ahead of us if i understand the Bush method of determining when America should embark on an invasion for the good of all mankind and promotion of democracy. If I have my facts straight the story goes like this. Now we know that Saddam was disarmed in 1991 and remained disarmed up to the day we invaded, so invasion of other countries need not be based on an actual threat. We can and will invade countries at the discretion of Mr. bush who have a very bad man as their leader and who might someday possibly be able to threaten us. There is and was no Iraq Al Queda link http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5412.shtml latest government report states iraq was not a threat http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq.html?hp Paul bremmer says we had inadequate plans for the invasion http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/politics/06troops.html The Center for American progress says pre emptive war is wrong http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=85070 we now use private mercenaries to hide what we are really doing http://blackwatersecurity.com/ Blackwater provides murder for hire on a grand scale "Blackwater USA is comprised of five companies; Blackwater Training Center, Blackwater Target Systems, Blackwater Security Consulting, Blackwater Canine, and Blackwater Air (AWS). We have established a global presence and provide training and tactical solutions for the 21st century." Pentagon officials openly state we have at least 5 countries we might invade if the man with no lips is re elected http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/september2004/050904preemptive.htm August 19, Senior Pentagon policy official William Luti said there are at least five or six foreign countries with traits that "no responsible leader can allow," Time quoted sources as saying. So now that we are potentially set to follow the man with no lips into his vision of the future are we clear about the facts? It takes no far stretch of the imagination to determine that the number of people in our military which now is impossibly inadequate will get worse. Paul bremmer a distinguished man stated without hesitation we have inadequate troop levels in Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/politics/06troops.html So I would presume absent a 300% increase in voluntary enlistments (enlistments are dropping like a stone) we are going to be short about 30 divisions and we will need about 300,000 more combat troops than we are currently able to get in the field. The administration insists that we have no plans for a draft. Why then pray tell are they putting together the necessary staff for all the draft boards previously disbanded to be re opened? i can only think of one reason that draft boards would be created, so we can draft young Americans into the military right after the election. Also though it gets no discussion in the news we are building 14 very large and permanent military bases in Iraq, these bases are capable of maintaining 150,000 US troops in Iraq "PERMANENTLY". So much for the claim by the Bush team we are not there permanently. So my friends knowing that we are set to Invade Iran and probably Syria if the man with no lips is re elected are you prepared to provide America your children for the next 2 wars? we will need to draft 500,000 to 1,000,000 troops in order to get 300,000 in the field of battle. CIA report refutes Bush claims on lraq-al Qaeda link By Staff and Wire Reports Oct 6, 2004, 03:02 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5412.shtml Even with intense pressure from the Bush Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency report found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - a link the administration claimed was established before the invasion of Iraq. "There's no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi," a U.S. official said on Tuesday about the CIA findings contained in a new report. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the new report, a mix of new information and a look at some older information, did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions. "To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said in confirming an ABC News story about the CIA report that the network said was delivered to the White House last week. ABC quoted an unnamed senior U.S. official as saying that the CIA document raises "serious questions" about Bush administration assertions that Zarqawi found sanctuary in pre-war Baghdad. "The official says there is no clear cut evidence that Saddam Hussein even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad," ABC reported. The CIA report concludes Zarqawi was in and out of Baghdad, but cast doubt on reports that Zarqawi had been given official approval for medical treatment there as President Bush said this summer, ABC said. " - Martin Sch

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100604Y.shtml There are letters at this link from troops in iraq please read what they have to say.

Well could it be the house of cards built by Bush can fall Bremer criticizes troop levels in Iraq http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180514/ Ex-administrator says planning failure created 'atmosphere of lawlessness' The bulk of postwar planning for Iraq focused on an expected humanitarian crisis, not a bloody insurgency, former administrator L. Paul Bremer told an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. Monday. By Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks Updated: 12:37 a.m. ET Oct. 5, 2004 WASHINGTON - The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. advertisement Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on. "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground." Echoes of Kerry's criticism Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls. • David Hare sees how war plays on world stage • For Iraqi girl, reality weighs against struggle for new beliefs • More Iraq news In a Sept. 17 speech at DePauw University, Bremer said he had frequently raised the problem within the administration and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was spurned because the situation in Iraq might be different today. "The single most important change — the one thing that would have improved the situation — would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind. A Bremer aide said that his speeches were intended for private audiences and were supposed to have been off the record. Yesterday, however, excerpts of his remarks — given at the Greenbrier resort at an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers — were distributed in a news release by the conference organizers.

"Wow, you think Lincoln got thousands butchered needlessly?" No, I think some of his less than brilliant generals did. Lincoln eventually fired them when they did not perform. That was the point. You don;t keep consistent failure around just because they are in the same political party or ideology. Well, unless you are a dictator or we are not too bright ourselves.

"Google this "ABB Engineers Korea" see what you get once again you missed the point by 10,000 miles. we would not be having the discussion at all about north Korean nuke arms if the nice little company ABB Engineers with none other than Donald Rumsfeld on the board of directors was not building nuke facilities in North Korea in the first place. Kim Jung Il has not demonstrated an ability to defecate plutonium. some idiots decided to build him a nuke facility. Those idiots were lead by Donald Rumsfeld. Now America and the world is facing the nuke weapons derived from that idiotic and destructive "careless capitalism" for after all Kim Jung IL Is a psycho and should never in a million years ever been given a nuke facility. So you will have to excuse me if I think your team including head idiot Don Rumsfeld is inhabited with self serving war profiteering idiots who by their "careless capitalism" put us in danger by building a nuke facility in North Korea and thus allowed Kim Jung Il get fissile materials in the first place. Please tell me sir what kind of idiot would build a facility like that knowing that north Korea is run by a psycho? Please tell