Uh oh....NOT good. Bhutto Assasinated

[Plane]

.

Question, and a sincere one, if WMD were a major potential threat, why weren't our ground troops prepared for NBC combat during the invasion?

Were they not?

The US Armed forces go no where without their M.O.P. gear did they make an exception for Iraq and leave it behind?


http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9717&page=164



http://www.wood.army.mil/chmdsd/pdfs/Jan-June_2007/Jan-June_2007.pdf

http://mikeinmanila.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/iraqi-insurgents-using-chemical-warfarein-terror-attacks/

http://www.nbc-links.com/

Where is your roll of Plastic and case of duct tape?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/12/070312fa_fact_coll

[Plane]

Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq. 

It would have been irresponsible not to have invaded another country?

It would have been irresponsible not to deal with the grave potential of terrorists getting their hands on the WMD of a country who had ties with terrorists (so said the global intel).  When it got the point that the country's leader was not going to fully and completely abide by UN 1441, THEN, the last choice left, when all other diplomatic options failed, was to invade.  Sorry if that wasn't made more obvious

How exactly this describes the situation that was Apparent with Saddam!

Not actual perhaps , but apparent, and Saddam himself was keeping up appearences.

[Plane]

I'm so glad we had saner leaders (and a more educated populace evidently) in the Cold War. 
USSR had lotta bombs, ya know. 

I think that's probably debatable Lanya.

Look at what the Soviets did in Hungary in 1956 and Prague in 1968. We cried, pissed, and moaned about it, but we attempted the same thing in Korea and Vietnam only in both cases we either had marginal success or completely failed and with a great deal more lives lost on both sides. I don't think we were any less anxious to impose our will in those days, it was just that the Soviets were lousy at public relations and we weren't a nation with a large middle class with a great deal to sacrifice for imperial ambition.

I reject the equivelence of smashing the "Prague Spring" and defending the defenseless South Koreans from massacre.

[sirs]

NBC = Nuclear, Biological, Chemical  Apologies for not being clear.

No apologies necessary. 

How were they not prepared?  Do you have some article that presents a clear situation where our troops weren't prepared for a biological or chemical attack?  Last time I read, they had all the necessary gear they believed they needed, in the event that they believed there was an imminent WMD attack or if their electronic devices recorded any evidence of such

And let me point out an excellent example of a rationally minded liberal.  You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had.  NOT some imminent nuclear attack on America, or completely distorted garbage like that, but an actual risk our troops would have been under, while in the immediate region.  My compliments, Js.  I doubt however messers Xo, Brass, or Tee will pick up on it though, but cudos anyways

[_JS]

I'm so glad we had saner leaders (and a more educated populace evidently) in the Cold War. 
USSR had lotta bombs, ya know. 

I think that's probably debatable Lanya.

Look at what the Soviets did in Hungary in 1956 and Prague in 1968. We cried, pissed, and moaned about it, but we attempted the same thing in Korea and Vietnam only in both cases we either had marginal success or completely failed and with a great deal more lives lost on both sides. I don't think we were any less anxious to impose our will in those days, it was just that the Soviets were lousy at public relations and we weren't a nation with a large middle class with a great deal to sacrifice for imperial ambition.

I reject the equivelence of smashing the "Prague Spring" and defending the defenseless South Koreans from massacre.

Defending the South Koreans? From what?

You mean a dictatorship? Like the one that existed there until the early 90's!! LOL

Or perhaps Vietnam is more your flavor. I mean Diem was surely much more moral and democratic than Ho Chi Minh (that's sarcasm). And let's not forget how we changed Cambodia into a fine example of modern democracy for years to come.

No. We were no better than the Soviets when it came to imposing our will on other nations, though we certainly put on a good show of pretending to be.

[_JS]

NBC = Nuclear, Biological, Chemical  Apologies for not being clear.

No apologies necessary. 

How were they not prepared?  Do you have some article that presents a clear situation where our troops weren't prepared for a biological or chemical attack?  Last time I read, they had all the necessary gear they believed they needed, in the event that they believed there was an imminent WMD attack or if their electronic devices recorded any evidence of such

And let me point out an excellent example of a rationally minded liberal.  You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had.  NOT some imminent nuclear attack on America, or completely distorted garbage like that, but an actual risk our troops would have been under, while in the immediate region.  My compliments, Js.  I doubt however messers Xo, Brass, or Tee will pick up on it though, but cudos anyways

Actually, Plane is right. The troops were mostly outfitted with NBC gear. I was wrong.

[sirs]

It would have been irresponsible not to deal with the grave potential of terrorists getting their hands on the WMD of a country who had ties with terrorists (so said the global intel).  When it got the point that the country's leader was not going to fully and completely abide by UN 1441, THEN, the last choice left, when all other diplomatic options failed, was to invade.  Sorry if that wasn't made more obvious

I'm so glad we had saner leaders (and a more educated populace evidently) in the Cold War.   USSR had lotta bombs, ya know.  

Not sure where you're trying to go with that lanya.  You looking to advocate mass retaliation of nukes that Russia did have?  You ACTUALLY think Bush would have invaded Russia, during the cold war, who had an arsenal of nukes??  REALLY?    

[sirs]

Actually, Plane is right. The troops were mostly outfitted with NBC gear. I was wrong.

No problemmo

[hnumpah]

Let's not forget the rest in your haste to dismiss the 'excuses' for the war...

Shouldn't take more than six months...

Oil revenues will pay for the rebuilding...

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...

The insurgency is in its last throes...

We need a surge...

[sirs]

Let's not forget the rest in your haste to dismiss the 'excuses' for the war...

Let's address these misguided attempts to imply a "changing of stories", and excuses shall we, since most of them have nothing to do with the reasons we went in = 'excuses'.

Shouldn't take more than six months...

Optimistic thinking that was not realistic.  It's one of the legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at some in the Dept of Defense.  Doesn't change why we went in, or Bush repetatvely reminding us that this will take quite some time, to bring stability & democracy to Iraq.  Perhaps generational even.

Oil revenues will pay for the rebuilding...

That is still a valid goal.  Not sure what your point is here

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...

One of the most pathetically used accusatory distortions.  TIMELINE.  Saddam was taken out, mission accomplished.  Only morons would believe that the fall of Saddam and the taking out of his regime meant everything was completed.  It has always meant, what it clearly means, the mission of taking down Saddam was accomplished.  THOSE major military functions had come to an end.

The insurgency is in its last throes...

See 1st response.  Still doesn't change why we went in

We need a surge...

I didn't think we did.  I was wrong.  It's obviously working

[Michael Tee]

<<You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had.  >>

Oh, I see.  So NOW the "reason" for invading Iraq was not to forestall a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Amerikkka, but to prevent  WMD attacks on Amerikkkan troops invading Iraq.  More logical minds might have figured out that the best way to protect American troops invading Iraq from Iraqi WMD would have been simply not to invade Iraq.  But the Republican brain sees PAST that simple notion:  we are invading Iraq because Saddam has WMD which might be used against our troops in the field if they invade Iraq.  Yes.  Thank you for straightening that out for us, sirs.

<<  NOT some imminent nuclear attack on America, or completely distorted garbage like that . . . >>

You mean, "We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud?"  THAT kind of distorted garbage? 

<< . . . but an actual risk our troops would have been under, while in the immediate region. >>

Uhh, exactly what were your troops "in the region" for in the first place, if not to invade Iraq?  (Just askin)

<<I doubt however messers Xo, Brass, or Tee will pick up on it though . . . >>

Oh, I picked up on it alright.  It's - - uhh - - very different.  And special.

[sirs]

<<You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had.  >>

Oh, I see.  So NOW the "reason" for invading Iraq was not to forestall a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Amerikkka, but to prevent  WMD attacks on Amerikkkan troops invading Iraq.

Not even worth a response, since that was never said or even implied



 

[Michael Tee]

Sorry, but I did try to make sense out of your remarks, and the interpretation I came up with, illogical as it seemed, was the only one I could find.  Want to try again to make your point?

[The_Professor]

It will prove interesting after January 2008 to see the justification/rationale occuring here time and time again by the Left for anything and everything Billary does. 

I can't wait...

[Michael Tee]

<<It will prove interesting after January 2008 to see the justification/rationale occuring here time and time again by the Left for anything and everything Billary does.>>

You just don't get that "the left" does not hold Bill and Hillary in any particularly high regard.  I consider myself a pretty far-left leftist, and believe me, there will be no sense of victory on my part if Hillary is elected President.  Frankly, she's a sold-out whore for the Israel lobby and as someone who (unlike Obama) voted initially to back the war on Iraq, she's just as guilty as Bush is for the consequences of that vote.  The only "leftist" candidate that I'd support is Dennis Kucinich, and of course he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.