More on BHO & Benghazi

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

I'm certain you were willing to gamble that none of these WMDs would make it to US soil.

If that was such a big fear, why supply them to him in the first place?

History shows the rest of the world should be more in fear of the US using them.

[winsor 187]

airdvr

******There are only a couple of things that could have been on them that would justify war. Nukes or chem/bio weapons. I think the responsibility is on the attacking party to be damn sure that's what was on them. Not pretty sure, not voting-for-it sure, not cherry-picking-the-data sure, but much more sure than the standard of proof required to execute an American citizen.

Because thousands of Americans, and over a hundred thousand Iraqis, died in part because of those trucks.

Wendy P.

In all seriousness, why is it our problem if they were full of WMDs?

We have more WMDs than anyone in history; how is it okay for us if it is not okay for them? Not only that, but we are the only country on earth that has used Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons in anger for effect.

As the basis for our casus belli, the veracity of claims we used was entirely irrelevant. The fact that they were nonsense was just icing on the cake.

FWIW, Saddam Hussein was our best asset in Iraq. He maintained a secular government that kept a tight lid on the wellspring of religious fuckheads of various persuasions who only wanted the opportunity to kill each other, he maintained an environment where terrorist organizations had a nonexistent life span, and he kept the assholes in neighboring countries busy maintaining defenses against him.

What's not to like?

The very idea of Operation Stinking Desert (or whatever it was) was beyond flawed from the git go. Bulletproof shoes are in order for anyone that thinks shooting yourself in the foot like that is a good idea.


BSBD,

Winsor

Winsor...I'm certain you were willing to gamble that none of these WMDs would make it to US soil. Others were not.

Here's a long list of Democrats who were certain of the threat long before 2003.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Citing a list of Democrats that were all for it confirms my thesis that only shitheads could conclude that it was a good idea.

The Islamic Bomb is a reality - Pakistan is a member of the club, and al Qaeda and the Taliban are quite at home there.

Even if WMDs in Saddam Hussein's hands was viewed as a major problem, going to war with Iraq was never a solution.

One of the things we tend to overlook is that, even if we can make good our threat to kick ass, we have no idea what to do after we have 'won.' The idea that everyone will immediately gravitate to our idea of 'freedom' and 'democracy' is not just naive, it is inane.

I really don't like stinging insects, but I knot better than to kick a hornet's nest. Apparently the people in charge of our foreign policy were new to that concept.


BSBD,

Winsor

[airdvr 200]

kallend

We do know FOR CERTAIN that no WMDs were found, that there was no nuclear program, and that the claimed bioweapons labs turned out to be hydrogen production facilities.

Let me bring you up to speed on that one as well. (bolding mine)

According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." However, the IAEA did find that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] ... and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program."

Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years.

Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections.



Once again I'm quite certain you and yours were OK with gambling that none of these WMDs would reach US soil.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[winsor 187]

airdvr

***
We do know FOR CERTAIN that no WMDs were found, that there was no nuclear program, and that the claimed bioweapons labs turned out to be hydrogen production facilities.

Let me bring you up to speed on that one as well. (bolding mine)

According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." However, the IAEA did find that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] ... and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program."

Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years.

Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections.



Once again I'm quite certain you and yours were OK with gambling that none of these WMDs would reach US soil.

Are you serious?

At this stage of the game, having completely fucked up everything we touched and destablized the hell out of a large part of the world, are you suggesting that there is any justification for the debacle we authored?

If so, I am in awe.

[airdvr 200]

wmw999

There are only a couple of things that could have been on them that would justify war. Nukes or chem/bio weapons. I think the responsibility is on the attacking party to be damn sure that's what was on them. Not pretty sure, not voting-for-it sure, not cherry-picking-the-data sure, but much more sure than the standard of proof required to execute an American citizen.

Because thousands of Americans, and over a hundred thousand Iraqis, died in part because of those trucks.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

Absolutely 100% sure? Damned sure? Like Obama and his drone strikes?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 200]

winsor

******
We do know FOR CERTAIN that no WMDs were found, that there was no nuclear program, and that the claimed bioweapons labs turned out to be hydrogen production facilities.

Let me bring you up to speed on that one as well. (bolding mine)

According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." However, the IAEA did find that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] ... and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program."

Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years.

Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections.



Once again I'm quite certain you and yours were OK with gambling that none of these WMDs would reach US soil.

Are you serious?

At this stage of the game, having completely fucked up everything we touched and destablized the hell out of a large part of the world, are you suggesting that there is any justification for the debacle we authored?

If so, I am in awe.

I'm surprised that you aren't following the line. I have no problem admitting that the end results in Iraq have been a clusterfuck starting with Bill Clinton, escalated by W, and a continuing clusterfuck by Barry. The only one who got it right was 42.

I'm referring to intent.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,435]

Let me bring you up to speed:

"Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections."

Once we threatened military actions they were allowed full access. The IAEA made a speech just before we invaded that they were getting full cooperation and they needed a few more weeks to complete the inspections. However, that would have revealed that Saddam didn't have any weapons, and thus we invaded before our only justification was gone.

From IAEA's March 2003 report:
======================
Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. . . .

I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern. . . .

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.
=======================

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Once we threatened military actions they were allowed full access. The IAEA made a speech just before we invaded that they were getting full cooperation and they needed a few more weeks to complete the inspections. However, that would have revealed that Saddam didn't have any weapons, and thus we invaded before our only justification was gone.

Ah Bill...only you would buy into the full and complete access by Saddam story. Never happened.

And perhaps you can direct me to the congressional inquiry into the lies told by the W administration. Certainly with this much evidence the Democrats must have initiated such a committee.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,435]

>Ah Bill...only you would buy into the full and complete access by Saddam story.
>Never happened.

Those quotes came directly from the the IAEA, the UN organization conducting the inspections. (But let me guess - those are "liberal lies.")

[kallend 1,651]

airdvr

***
We do know FOR CERTAIN that no WMDs were found, that there was no nuclear program, and that the claimed bioweapons labs turned out to be hydrogen production facilities.

Let me bring you up to speed on that one as well. (bolding mine)

According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." However, the IAEA did find that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] ... and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program."

Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years.

Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections.



Once again I'm quite certain you and yours were OK with gambling that none of these WMDs would reach US soil.

And by early 2003 IAEA inspectors had been readmitted and had concluded that there was NO program.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp#88tKo51dw3ucAsmY.99

Guess Kerry and Hillary both believed GWB....

[billvon 2,435]

This is the usual conservative two-step on the issue.

"They didn't let inspectors in! We had to invade to protect ourselves."
"Yes, they did let inspectors in. Here's the proof."
"Well, maybe they did - but we knew he had the weapons!"
"No, he didn't. Here are the final reports."
"Well . . . but . . . but . . .some democrats thought they had them!"

When your best defense of a war that killed 4000 American soldiers and ~100,000 Iraqis is "but someone else screwed up too" you know you are running on empty.

[cvfd1399 0]

That wasn't a two step, the WMD were there in 98 said Clinton, so answer me this where did they go. Those statements from YOUR side not the right.

[airdvr 200]

It's easy to look back and point out the mistakes Bill. Anyone can do that.

You hate W so much...I guess that's how I feel about the Clintons. I think it's a pretty amazing feat that someone you regard as a dumb Texan was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. You'll never convince me that W intentionally mislead so he could have the satisfaction of getting rid of Saddam. I think his intent was to safeguard us from the possibility of SH or AQ getting their hands on WMDs and bringing them here. On one level he succeeded... on another he's a complete failure. That will be his legacy.

On the other hand you have a sitting President who looks right into a TV camera, points his finger and lies with a straight face. Under oath as well. And that's just the one we can prove. When we were directly attacked during the Clinton administration all he could muster was a few well placed cruise missiles and some rhetoric. I truly believe that this impersonal use of weapons pissed off middle easterners much more than any invading army. Much the same as Obama's drone strikes do today.

I was born in 1958. I was just a boy during much of Vietnam. A war started and escalated by Democrats. But I remember the upheaval it caused. I remember the protests. I didn't really see any of that from this generation and I didn't see much of it during the Iraq war. I'll chalk that up to the all volunteer nature of today.

But this thread is about Hillary...most likely our next President. I fear she was taking notes.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[grimmie 177]

"W" pulled the wool over everyone's eyes because of the point in history our nation was at. Revenge.
All his cronies knew it and took full advantage.

Define WMDs as they relate to the USA and our security.

Lots of other nations have nuclear weapons, but we don't go about invading them.

[winsor 187]

grimmie

"W" pulled the wool over everyone's eyes because of the point in history our nation was at. Revenge.
All his cronies knew it and took full advantage.

Define WMDs as they relate to the USA and our security.

Lots of other nations have nuclear weapons, but we don't go about invading them.

Not quite everyone.

There are rather a few people who were on the record pointing out that the mission was a fool's errand, a bad idea coming and going.

The fact that our end game consisted of the newly freed Iraqis throwing flowers at our feet, swept away with admiration and gratitude for the gift of democracy, was a dead giveaway. It told me that any of the Ivy League wonks behind the debacle may have had good grades in History, but it wasn't by virtue of actually STUDYING the subject (one more reason to dislike fraternities).

We are again and again suckered into the game plan that goes "we all agree that this is a problem, so what we propose is THE SOLUTION. Anyone who opposes our SOLUTION is for the problem!" Obamacare is a prime example.

Anyone who was actually paying attention at the time recognized the unfolding debacle as being founded on bullshit coming and going. All in all, we fared about as well as could be expected (it could have been worse).


BSBD,

Winsor

[RonD1120 58]

You did not cite a source for your transcription but I'll accept it as accurate.

Here is the point. BHO and HC lied about the events and deaths at Benghazi to further his re-election. What took place with President Bush had no bearing in this instance.

You are simply making a tangent argument.

You asked me how I felt about invading Iraq. I was OK with it. Prior to 9/11/2001 the only people I knew that had any contact with Islam was a friend who work in Saudi Arabia for one year and hated the "Ragheads." The other was a USF medical student from Lebanon that converted to Christianity and was disowned by his family. When Islamic terrorists declared war on the U.S. I did not care who we retaliated against. I thought Afghanistan was the perfect place to start and wherever else was good as well.

You see, you asked me about feelings.

Don't forget, the Vietnam escalation by LBJ was based on the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. That does not mean that what we did was wrong. The war was mismanaged and misreported by the liberal media but not wrong.

BHO and HC are not good for America. I would like to see them exiled to another country. That of course won't happen but that is how I feel.

Do you get the difference? Feelings, beliefs and fantasies, what does it all mean?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 1,651]

RonD1120

You did not cite a source for your transcription but I'll accept it as accurate.

Here is the point. BHO and HC lied about the events and deaths at Benghazi to further his re-election. What took place with President Bush had no bearing in this instance.

You are simply making a tangent argument.

You asked me how I felt about invading Iraq. I was OK with it. Prior to 9/11/2001 the only people I knew that had any contact with Islam was a friend who work in Saudi Arabia for one year and hated the "Ragheads." The other was a USF medical student from Lebanon that converted to Christianity and was disowned by his family. When Islamic terrorists declared war on the U.S. I did not care who we retaliated against. I thought Afghanistan was the perfect place to start and wherever else was good as well.

You see, you asked me about feelings.

Don't forget, the Vietnam escalation by LBJ was based on the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. That does not mean that what we did was wrong. The war was mismanaged and misreported by the liberal media but not wrong.

BHO and HC are not good for America. I would like to see them exiled to another country. That of course won't happen but that is how I feel.

Do you get the difference? Feelings, beliefs and fantasies, what does it all mean?

The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cvfd1399 0]

kallend

***You did not cite a source for your transcription but I'll accept it as accurate.

Here is the point. BHO and HC lied about the events and deaths at Benghazi to further his re-election. What took place with President Bush had no bearing in this instance.

You are simply making a tangent argument.

You asked me how I felt about invading Iraq. I was OK with it. Prior to 9/11/2001 the only people I knew that had any contact with Islam was a friend who work in Saudi Arabia for one year and hated the "Ragheads." The other was a USF medical student from Lebanon that converted to Christianity and was disowned by his family. When Islamic terrorists declared war on the U.S. I did not care who we retaliated against. I thought Afghanistan was the perfect place to start and wherever else was good as well.

You see, you asked me about feelings.

Don't forget, the Vietnam escalation by LBJ was based on the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. That does not mean that what we did was wrong. The war was mismanaged and misreported by the liberal media but not wrong.

BHO and HC are not good for America. I would like to see them exiled to another country. That of course won't happen but that is how I feel.

Do you get the difference? Feelings, beliefs and fantasies, what does it all mean?

The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.


You can't compare world war victories to these police action wars where you had to fight with your hands tied. Given an open playbook I have no doubt the U.S. could win any war at this point. No saying that we should because an open playbook is a massacre for casualties. Throwing a 1/5 ratio out there is just stupid.

[turtlespeed 212]

cvfd1399

******You did not cite a source for your transcription but I'll accept it as accurate.

Here is the point. BHO and HC lied about the events and deaths at Benghazi to further his re-election. What took place with President Bush had no bearing in this instance.

You are simply making a tangent argument.

You asked me how I felt about invading Iraq. I was OK with it. Prior to 9/11/2001 the only people I knew that had any contact with Islam was a friend who work in Saudi Arabia for one year and hated the "Ragheads." The other was a USF medical student from Lebanon that converted to Christianity and was disowned by his family. When Islamic terrorists declared war on the U.S. I did not care who we retaliated against. I thought Afghanistan was the perfect place to start and wherever else was good as well.

You see, you asked me about feelings.

Don't forget, the Vietnam escalation by LBJ was based on the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. That does not mean that what we did was wrong. The war was mismanaged and misreported by the liberal media but not wrong.

BHO and HC are not good for America. I would like to see them exiled to another country. That of course won't happen but that is how I feel.

Do you get the difference? Feelings, beliefs and fantasies, what does it all mean?

The USA is 1 for 5 in wars since 1945. All we do is kill lots of people (including our own troops) and achieve very little.


You can't compare world war victories to these police action wars where you had to fight with your hands tied. Given an open playbook I have no doubt the U.S. could win any war at this point. No saying that we should because an open playbook is a massacre for casualties. Throwing a 1/5 ratio out there is just stupid.

You think we could survive a full on, no holds barred, war with China?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

"Throwing a 1/5 ratio out there is just stupid. "

Facts are not stupid.

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

"Throwing a 1/5 ratio out there is just stupid. "

Facts are not stupid.

Personally, I don't have an issue with losing the war on drugs, and the war on women.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Facts are not stupid.

It is when your comparing a record of things that are similar but not the same norm lets be serious now.

That would be like saying a football team sucks because they went undefeated all year, but lost 4 games post season when they were forced to play without using their hands every game...

[RonD1120 58]

normiss

"Throwing a 1/5 ratio out there is just stupid. "

Facts are not stupid.

They are when they have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

You think we could survive a full on, no holds barred, war with China?

If the U.S. military was let loose, and the citizens contributed like they did back in the day to the war effort I believe we could even knowing how much in debt we are. I never underestimate what Americans can do when the shit hits the fan and its really on.

The only thing that would stop us is pussy footing around and hog tying by the left.