Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of Iraq?

Moot question, but we know 10 shells does not allow us to rationalize an invasion.

This is fun - we're talkin' all pleasant like.

 

Oh CHIT! I forgot my disclaimer saying this is only a "what if' scenario, not a commentary of any group's ethnic, sexual or religious orientation, and for amusement purposes only!

Rodger: How much you charging nowadays for representation??

 

I'm with Buck on this one. "He needed killing" is an oft-used legal arguement in the South.

 

Because you are doomed to lose the case, I'll have to charge you $450 per hour!!

I wish.

 

COPIED FROM A BBC WEB SITE:

Three dozen mortar shells uncovered in Iraq earlier this month had no chemical agents, the Danish army says.
It is not clear why initial tests first showed they could contain blister gas, the Danish army said in a statement carried by the AP news agency.

The 36 shells were found in southern Iraq buried among building equipment, even though they appeared to have been abandoned for at least 10 years.

The US-UK coalition launched the war in Iraq over arms banned by the UN.


No weapons of mass destruction have been found since Saddam Hussein's regime fell, although US claims inspectors have found evidence of WMD-related programmes.

Initial confusion

Field tests conducted by British and Danish inspectors indicated that the shells - found on 9 January - contained traces of blister gases - including mustard gas compounds.

But further tests by the Iraq Survey Group in South Iraq and the US Department of Energy's National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho proved these results were incorrect.

 

mtiberio steps up to the plate - swings - and misses - AGAIN!



Dude - we weren't talking about those.

 

Keep in mind that we after WWII it took us several years to find evidence of Hitler's atomic weapons programs (which we knew for a fact that he had) and even then, all we found was a few drums of heavy water. Nothing else was ever recovered.

So all this "there were no WMD's" BS is about two or three years (at least) premature. It's a big desert over there, with lots of places to hide stuff.

More importantly, it wasn't our job to find them! All the inspectors were supposed to do was oversee and document the distruction of the known weapons. They weren't supposed to be playing detective. Saddam failed to provide the documentation and proof that the weapons had been destroyed. That placed him out of material compliance with the UN resolutions and made his ass fair game. We didn't need proof of WMDs to invade. We merely needed Saddam to be uncooperative, and he did that quite well. It was the idiot French who managed to reframe the debate to "finding weapons" instead of "overseeing their distruction." And what do you know, we came to find out that the French had huge oil interests in Iraq, the EXACT thing we were accused of. Funny that.

In addition, there has been evidence coming to light that Iraq did have some contact with Al Queda (or however you spell the names of those bastards) and while they may not have been directly involved in 9/11, they certainly were aiding and abetting the enemy. That's reason enough for me.

And with all that said, I think it was a genius move, and more and more folks are starting to realize it as well. The political calculus of the Middle East has been totally changed by the overthrow of Saddam's regime. Look at what has happened since that time: Libya (sp?) has come forth and said they have no WMD's. Iran is suddenly playing nice too. Do you think this is random coincidence? I don't. The tyrants are realizing that the US is well past the point of screwing around with terrorists and dictators in two-bit shitholes. They can either clean up their own sandbox or we'll come in and do it for them, whether they like it or not.

As Admiral Yamamoto said after Pearl Harbor, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve." He was right. Osama did the same thing.

Now as for Iraq becoming a Vietnam quagmire, I don't see it that way at all. We know that people are travelling to Iraq specifically to engage our troops. As I understand it, that's just fine with our troops as they would much rather have the terrorist attacking them than attacking American civilians at home. Our solidiers are quite proficient at fighting back and every one of these encounters ends with a few more terrorists on their way to meet Allah. Since the only good terrorist is a dead one, that's a net good thing.

"It's not a good day to be a bad guy."

 

Question?? Where are all the protesters and human shields that ranted and ranted about how many civilians were going to be killed by collateral damage during the war??

More innocent Iraqi civilians have died from human bombs in Iraq then during the war..and it continues to rise. Where are the protesters?? Human shields...get your arses out there....the innocent civilians need you now, more than Saddam did last year.

I wonder if the anit-war crowd really cared about the civilians or if they just had to satisfy their anti-American/Bush hating agenda?

About WMD's, Clinton, Gore, the UN, all believed that Iraq had or was in the process of developing nuclear weapons. This was all based on intelligence, the same intelligence that reported to Bush. As our Commander in Cheif and leader what did you expect him to do, wait around for another 9/11 before he acted? No, a true leader takes action and that is what this administration did.

If Bush had not acted, the same Looney Lefties that cry about the action that was taken, would be crying because action was NOT taken and millions lay dead. With you guys it's always a lose-lose situation because no one ever holds you accountable for what you say.

 

.....if these where such a big deal, why didn't Kay identify these as WMD??

 

I don't think you'll need to go back even one century, much less two.

 

It's the way I see Kerry, he's new to many others but he's just a local politician with a long record of dick-headedness to me.

The simple-minded comment was a poke at the poster I was replying to.

 

I'm sorry, butt don't "politician" and "dick-head..." just go hand in hand?

In my observation, by the time anyone gets far enough up the ladder in any political machine to make a viable run for national office, they have already sold their soul to the highest bidder(s).

"The difference between an honest pol and a dishonest one is that the honest ones stay bought." -- LBJ

 

Most of the time - but not always. During my tenure as a lobbyist I met a few (very few) politicians who were sincere, principled, honest people.

 

... you said a lobbyist

there quite a bit of irony in thinking lobbyists and politicians are honest people.

 

This should be fun.

 

Chuck, your opinion matters about this much to me:

 

Slow, lighten up.

(This is coming from a lawyer who has suffered immensely from anti-lawyer jokes here. )

But you gotta admit, you admission that you were a LOBBYIST is fodder for much fun and frivoloity here.

 

"Admission?" You've got to be kidding. I'm extremely proud of what I was able to accomplish. I stood up for what I believe in and made some very positive changes for the citizens of my state of residence. I'd bet big dollars that it's much more than any of the whiners who hang out here have done.

But I understand where you're coming from, Rodger. If I were a lawyer I'd be embarrassed too.

Don't worry - I'm not upset about comments from Team Monotonous. I saw him for what he is a long, long time ago.

 

Does anyone know any Lobbyist jokes??

But you are probably right about doing more than the whiners here in your lobbyist job. Question is, were you a paid or voluteer lobbyist? And what issues did you lobby on? For who?



And Atomic is a good guy - he has a sense of humor too. You don't have to agree with him to like him.

 

A lobbyist and a lawyer playing the dozens.

Now this should be good!!

A lawyer and a lobbyist are waiting to see the same politician.......