US forces used chemical weapons?

grimm · 11-09-2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

PornoDoggy · 11-09-2005

This article will be denied.

Then an investigation will be launched into who leaked secret government information that was false.

Sin · 11-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

This article will be denied.

Then an investigation will be launched into who leaked secret government information that was false.

OMG you're psychic???

MorganGrayson · 11-09-2005

I read the article. I found it nauseating.

I am aware that I demonstrate more than a little naivte in my definition of war: solidiers fighting other soldiers. I do understand the phrase "collateral damage."

Pouring phosphorus on citizens in their beds?

I never thought I'd see the word "napalm" again.

Idle thoughts.

Dravyk · 11-09-2005

May be true. May be propaganda.

I prefer at this time to think it's the latter.

Trev · 11-09-2005

I'm going to come off as a cunt here so what the fuck...

Even if they did use phosphorus rounds they're fighting the unknown... the child/woman/man that is willing to die for a cause... yes I've seen the pictures and I can show you pictures of our troops that have been blown up and shot by "civilians".

I'm not saying it's justified, but get a grip - if I was over there, I'd want phosphorus grenades!

Robert · 11-09-2005

.....eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say white phosphorus bombs were used in Fallujah.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/08/1516227

Trev · 11-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert

.....eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say white phosphorus bombs were used in Fallujah.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/08/1516227

DemocracyNow.org.... oh for god sakes!

Dravyk · 11-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert

.....eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say white phosphorus bombs were used in Fallujah.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/08/1516227

May be true. May be propaganda.

I prefer at this time to think it's the latter.

Trev · 11-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

May be true. May be propaganda.

I prefer at this time to think it's the latter.

Twice with the same answer...

Dravyk · 11-09-2005

Well it's the same damned story repeated, ain't it?

What's the matter? Miss the days of invading the Faklands for some sheep sex?

Trev · 11-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Well it's the same damned story repeated, ain't it?

What's the matter? Miss the days of invading the Faklands for some sheep sex?

I'm going to climb in to bed with my beautiful wife, I'll let you stew in your intelligent ignorance!

Dravyk · 11-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trev

I'm going to climb in to bed with my beautiful wife, I'll let you stew in your intelligent ignorance!

So you believe everything you read? Not my problem.

Be sure the lights are out and pull the sheets over your head.

Sin · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

So you believe everything you read? Not my problem.

Be sure the lights are out and pull the sheets over your head.

Preferring to believe that everything is probably propaganda, is as much pulling the sheets over your head as anything.

I'd "prefer" to think it is false too, however I'm more inclined to believe that it is true.

Dravyk · 11-10-2005

Ah, people don't get it at all.

Sin, you mistake what I am saying as well.

I said at the very beginning that it could be either way, 50-50. Funny how that's been overlooked in just a few posts so that now I'm 100-0 a certain way.

Shows more about people wanting to believe the worse, than it says anything about me.

PornoDoggy · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

I read the article. I found it nauseating.

I am aware that I demonstrate more than a little naivte in my definition of war: solidiers fighting other soldiers. I do understand the phrase "collateral damage."

Pouring phosphorus on citizens in their beds?

I never thought I'd see the word "napalm" again.

Idle thoughts.

I'm not sure I consider phosphorus or napalm as chemical weapons. They are some very nasty shit, to be sure - but very nasty shit is what you use in war.

I am sorry if civilians died, but I'm not sure how much sympathy I have for folks who stuck around Falujah in the weeks before the battle to retake it. They were more than amply warned about what was coming, and the tactical situation allowed plenty of time for folks to flee.

The tactical situation in Falujah was as fucked up as a soup sandwich. If those weapons were deployed, it was to save the lives of the U.S. Marines and soldiers who were trying to retake it. I'm don't want to see anyone die if possible, but if some mother's son or daughter has to die, I'd prefer it not be one that needs to flown back here in a flag-draped box.

Timon · 11-10-2005

^ what he said

Now who likes onions on his kebab?

Dravyk · 11-10-2005

Shit, tracer bullets could be considered chemical weapons.

Better yet, any bullets. What the hell do folks think gunpowder is made of? Pixie dust?

Seriously though, if US Forces used a military weapon during a war, well, gee, imagine the fuck out of that!

Sin · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Ah, people don't get it at all.

Sin, you mistake what I am saying as well.

I said at the very beginning that it could be either way, 50-50. Funny how that's been overlooked in just a few posts so that now I'm 100-0 a certain way.

Shows more about people wanting to believe the worse, than it says anything about me.

Ahhkay, gotcha.

As far as people wanting to believe the worse, I am a big believer of the 'trial & error' mode of learning.

JR · 11-10-2005

ok insane people... a YEAR after the fact, an Italian paper runs a story about the US using chemical weapons during that assault. Presumably all the residents of Fallujah that saw thier friends and family wiped out by this "mystery weapon" were not real concerned and did not feel the need to tell ANY media at the time ... because lets face it, Fallujah was about as "pro america" as a city can be.

admitting to using phosphorus shells to light up a battlefield is not the same as admitting to targeting civilians in a city with chemical weapons.

MorganGrayson · 11-10-2005

PD and JR, to select a couple, have excellent points.

There is always more to the story. Forming an opinion based on too little information, admittedly my error here, is always dangerous.

Dravyk · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

ok insane people... a YEAR after the fact, an Italian paper runs a story about the US using chemical weapons during that assault. Presumably all the residents of Fallujah that saw thier friends and family wiped out by this "mystery weapon" were not real concerned and did not feel the need to tell ANY media at the time ... because lets face it, Fallujah was about as "pro america" as a city can be.

admitting to using phosphorus shells to light up a battlefield is not the same as admitting to targeting civilians in a city with chemical weapons.

Thank you, JR!

Glad someone else sees ... the timing of this, that after all this time all of a sudden this, where it's coming from! Exactly!

All this why it all smells heavily of disinformational anti-American propogranda grade-A bullshit!

Oh, and an Italian paper? I'm sorry. There's a credible source, not.

This is a nation that changes goverments more often then Trev changes avatars. A country that is Democratic on even-numbered days, Fascist on odd-number days, takes Saturday's off to have orgies, confess them at church, then have more orgies, (ok, nothing wrong with that) and then the "goverment" becomes "Catholic" on Sundays, and they repeat the cycle all over again.

Hell, they can't even decide if they want to be ruled by a politician, a dictator, a farmer, a Pope, a crime boss or a porn star on any given month!

Inabon · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Thank you, JR!

Glad someone else sees ... the timing of this, that after all this time all of a sudden this, where it's coming from! Exactly!

All this why it all smells heavily of disinformational anti-American propogranda grade-A bullshit!

Oh, and an Italian paper? I'm sorry. There's a credible source, not.

This is a nation that changes goverments more often then Trev changes avatars. A country that is Democratic on even-numbered days, Fascist on odd-number days, takes Saturday's off to have orgies, confess them at church, then have more orgies, (ok, nothing wrong with that) and then the "goverment" becomes "Catholic" on Sundays, and they repeat the cycle all over again.

Hell, they can't even decide if they want to be ruled by a politician, a dictator, a farmer, a Pope, a crime boss or a porn star on any given month!

WTF because the rest of the world is fucked doesn't mean you guys are right you are just finding out that you are as fucked up as the rest of the world.

you have only had 1 war were i can say fuck yeah you should have nuked them 4 times and that was WWII

the rest of them have been pure up your ass stuff the thing is that now it is harder for the Old Eagle to block the view outside his nest. Something brought up on to itself for being so inventive (nothing wrong with invention)

Dravyk · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inabon

WTF because the rest of the world is fucked doesn't mean you guys are right you are just finding out that you are as fucked up as the rest of the world.

you have only had 1 war were i can say fuck yeah you should have nuked them 4 times and that was WWII

the rest of them have been pure up your ass stuff the thing is that now it is harder for the Old Eagle to block the view outside his nest. Something brought up on to itself for being so inventive (nothing wrong with invention)

We're as fucked up as everyone else. Agreed.*

Your point?

* Well, not as much as France, for at least one example.

Inabon · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

We're as fucked up as everyone else. Agreed.*

Your point?

* Well, not as much as France, for at least one example.

if you did not get the point its because you are AMERICAN

*not as france are you fucking crazy or do you not remember history france aint shit but a couple of burnt cars compared to the riots because 4 cops beat up a fucking big black dude that probably deserved it but turns out he also has rights (not that black has anything to do with it)

Dravyk · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inabon

if you did not get the point its because you are AMERICAN

And if you can't MAKE your point, it's because you are PANAMANIAN.

xcitetv · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trev

I'm going to come off as a cunt here so what the fuck...

Even if they did use phosphorus rounds they're fighting the unknown... the child/woman/man that is willing to die for a cause... yes I've seen the pictures and I can show you pictures of our troops that have been blown up and shot by "civilians".

I'm not saying it's justified, but get a grip - if I was over there, I'd want phosphorus grenades!

shame your not over there then

Fighting the unknown........for fucks sake they were not fighting anyone they just marched through killing whoever they came across
all the real Iraq fighters waited until the "liberation of Iraq"

then came out fighting when they had a target

Surley the first step in turning a foriegn country we have no power over in a "democracy" is asking them if thats what they want first

Inabon · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

And if you can't MAKE your point, it's because you are PANAMANIAN.

wrong

see you don't know history

as i am puertorrican yeah from one of your invaded territories (erm sorry)

the thing is i don't have the Eagle Glasses now that i live outside USA territory

Trev · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by xcitetv

shame your not over there then

Fighting the unknown........for fucks sake they were not fighting anyone they just marched through killing whoever they came across
all the real Iraq fighters waited until the "liberation of Iraq"

then came out fighting when they had a target

Surley the first step in turning a foriegn country we have no power over in a "democracy" is asking them if thats what they want first

Yup you're right, they're not fighting anyone... I'll tell a few of the local families here that...

The 18 year old from High Usworth that was shot and killed must have just been unlucky that there were bullets flying through the air in a friendly fasion...

The 19 year old from Town End Farm that was standing guard at a check point when some woman decided to blow him and his squad up should have known he wasn't fighting anyone... mind you the fact that she was walking through with her son should have gave away the fact it wasn't a fight...

Dravyk · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inabon

wrong

see you don't know history

as i am puertorrican yeah from one of your invaded territories (erm sorry)

the thing is i don't have the Eagle Glasses now that i live outside USA territory

Still waiting for your point.

But if all you can do is talk around it, and not actually about it, it was a very weak point to begin with.

Dravyk · 11-10-2005

Anyways, speaking of chemical weapons ...

I have an appointment with a beer draft down at my favorite pub.

Trev · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Anyways, speaking of chemical weapons ...

I have an appointment with a beer draft down at my favorite pub.

Good luck with that, you are truly a brave man.

Inabon · 11-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Still waiting for your point.

But if all you can do is talk around it, and not actually about it, it was a very weak point to begin with.

ok BUSH just pout and talk about not understanding a point to validate yours.

i have enjoy beer i am

Dravyk · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inabon

i have enjoy beer i am

Your bable fish broke.

Dravyk · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inabon

as i am puertorrican yeah from one of your invaded territories (erm sorry)

Remind me in the morning to talk about your poor exploited former land.

PornoDoggy · 11-11-2005

As I have already stated, I'm not sure that I even consider the munitions in question to be chemical weapons.

I have also previously stated in this thread that American troops on the ground have the right to defend themselves with weapons appropriate to the tactical situation.

That being said - I no more believe that phosphorus was deployed only for illumination purposes than I do GW (and his lackeys, foreign and domestic) when they say this war has made the U.S. (and its lackeys) any safer from terrorism.

Trev, I feel for the local families you are describing. My girlfriend's son has made three combat deployments since 9/11 (he went into Afghanistan in 2001, and has made two deployments to Iraq). We just lost another local kid this week; I've lost count of how many that makes total, but this is the 3rd from the local guard unit this deployment.

However ... You have to admit that it's not very likely that U.S. or U.K. troops would be getting killed by Iraqis if we hadn't invaded their country. You have to admit that the absence of a realistic plan for the occupation of Iraq is a big part of why the resistance has taken hold. You'd be a damned fool to try and claim that citizens of the U.S. or the U.K. are in any way safer from the threat of terrorism as a result of the sacrifices of the poor dumb son-of-a-bitches that get to die for their country.

The "plan" for Iraq was either the result of stupidity that rivals isolationism and/or appeasement of the Fascists, or stupidity that rivals isolationism/appeasement of the Fascists coupled with a cynicism that the Fascists would envy. There are an awful lot of reasons that turning Iraq into a functional democracy would have failed with three times the number of troops to occupy it.

But the cheap-assed method used was guaranteed to fail. Either Bush and his bootlick Blair were stupid enough to believe their own rhetoric about the people greeting us with parades, or they knew damned good and well what kind of chaos would result from this half-assed plan and that the resulting chaos and ensuing conflict was deliberately caused.

Happy fucking Armistice Day ...

JR · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inabon

WTF because the rest of the world is fucked doesn't mean you guys are right you are just finding out that you are as fucked up as the rest of the world.

you have only had 1 war were i can say fuck yeah you should have nuked them 4 times and that was WWII

the rest of them have been pure up your ass stuff the thing is that now it is harder for the Old Eagle to block the view outside his nest. Something brought up on to itself for being so inventive (nothing wrong with invention)

what does right, wrong, iraq and WWII have to do with the credibility of this article?

PornoDoggy · 11-11-2005

Hmmm ... a new board figure emerges.

Drav AI

Dravyk · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Hmmm ... a new board figure emerges.

Drav AI

Huh?

Inabon · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

what does right, wrong, iraq and WWII have to do with the credibility of this article?

same crap that made credible all the horror shit that happened in vietnam man.

you just don't get it...

everytime some country claims USA abused power it is immediately put down as not credible but when cnn said that sadam had weapons of mass destruction (after bush did) then that is the truth.

that is the fucking point but i am not surprised at the fact that you did not read between the lines.

Inabon · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Hmmm ... a new board figure emerges.

Drav AI

good one.

Inabon · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Remind me in the morning to talk about your poor exploited former land.

don't even try however it will be a fun conversation..

Trev · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

As I have already stated, I'm not sure that I even consider the munitions in question to be chemical weapons.

I have also previously stated in this thread that American troops on the ground have the right to defend themselves with weapons appropriate to the tactical situation.

That being said - I no more believe that phosphorus was deployed only for illumination purposes than I do GW (and his lackeys, foreign and domestic) when they say this war has made the U.S. (and its lackeys) any safer from terrorism.

Trev, I feel for the local families you are describing. My girlfriend's son has made three combat deployments since 9/11 (he went into Afghanistan in 2001, and has made two deployments to Iraq). We just lost another local kid this week; I've lost count of how many that makes total, but this is the 3rd from the local guard unit this deployment.

However ... You have to admit that it's not very likely that U.S. or U.K. troops would be getting killed by Iraqis if we hadn't invaded their country. You have to admit that the absence of a realistic plan for the occupation of Iraq is a big part of why the resistance has taken hold. You'd be a damned fool to try and claim that citizens of the U.S. or the U.K. are in any way safer from the threat of terrorism as a result of the sacrifices of the poor dumb son-of-a-bitches that get to die for their country.

The "plan" for Iraq was either the result of stupidity that rivals isolationism and/or appeasement of the Fascists, or stupidity that rivals isolationism/appeasement of the Fascists coupled with a cynicism that the Fascists would envy. There are an awful lot of reasons that turning Iraq into a functional democracy would have failed with three times the number of troops to occupy it.

But the cheap-assed method used was guaranteed to fail. Either Bush and his bootlick Blair were stupid enough to believe their own rhetoric about the people greeting us with parades, or they knew damned good and well what kind of chaos would result from this half-assed plan and that the resulting chaos and ensuing conflict was deliberately caused.

Happy fucking Armistice Day ...

Although it pains me to say it, I have to agree with you. Excellent post

Timon · 11-11-2005

so how bout them onions?

Dravyk · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inabon

don't even try however it will be a fun conversation..

Eh, nevermind.

I hate to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Inabon · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dravyk

Eh, nevermind.

I hate to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

ok GWB or Dravyk AI

Dravyk · 11-11-2005

That's it! Keep proving my point.

PornoDoggy · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timon

so how bout them onions?

What league do they play in?

Timon · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

What league do they play in?

The Kebab condiments league

JR · 11-11-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inabon

same crap that made credible all the horror shit that happened in vietnam man.

you just don't get it...

everytime some country claims USA abused power it is immediately put down as not credible but when cnn said that sadam had weapons of mass destruction (after bush did) then that is the truth.

that is the fucking point but i am not surprised at the fact that you did not read between the lines.

dude.... no one is talking about "everytime" here. regardless of what massive conspiracy theories you have and what conclusions your professional pyschological analysis of the group here have let you to... people were commenting on ONE article that even the most biased person would have to admit is suspicious.

do you think that all the people you are talking to right now are 100% behind bush.. the war? the decisions that were made? CNN? i could suggest as well that you "don't get it" since its fairly clear you are not paying attention and just looking for an excuse to rant.... which is fine... just a little off point.

your arguments above are a little silly. the fact that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction BEFORE the war was NEVER disputed by anyone but Iraq. It was not disputed by the UN, Hans Blix or anyone else. Lets not start defending Saddam or pretend that the average person had reason to believe that he was just an ok guy. Some in the international community wanted evidence that he was threat or a big enough threat that warranted a war... but NO ONE was disputing what he was up to... and i might add that most of those who were most concerned had all kinds of illegal oil deals in violation of the oil for food program with Saddam or multi billion dollar debts they hoped to collect - France, Russia, China etc. Morality, right and wrong and "facts" have nothing to do with anything. Money makes the world turn.... not happy thoughts and hugs.

Iraq war is not about anything for ANY side other than straight politics and economics. the "hows" "whys" and "whos" are irrelevent. always have been. its all just theater and scenery to conceal the uglier truth.

and when your arguments revolve around language like "everytime" "you don't get it" and "read between the lines"... you have no argument.

11-09-2005	#1
grimm Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show Stop Lurking and start posting! Register now! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 5,306	US forces used chemical weapons? http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece __________________ Think horses, not zebras.

11-09-2005	#2
PornoDoggy Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois Posts: 5,366	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? This article will be denied. Then an investigation will be launched into who leaked secret government information that was false. __________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...

11-09-2005	#4
MorganGrayson None $100 for every ImLive sign-up Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,321	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? I read the article. I found it nauseating. I am aware that I demonstrate more than a little naivte in my definition of war: solidiers fighting other soldiers. I do understand the phrase "collateral damage." Pouring phosphorus on citizens in their beds? I never thought I'd see the word "napalm" again. Idle thoughts.

11-09-2005	#5
Dravyk Easy Like Sunday Morning Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Behind a couch, somewhere in Philly Posts: 7,628	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? May be true. May be propaganda. I prefer at this time to think it's the latter. __________________ All Of 'Em Mainstream Webmasters New: WebmasterConventions.com

11-09-2005	#6
Trev Cunty Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,150	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? I'm going to come off as a cunt here so what the fuck... Even if they did use phosphorus rounds they're fighting the unknown... the child/woman/man that is willing to die for a cause... yes I've seen the pictures and I can show you pictures of our troops that have been blown up and shot by "civilians". I'm not saying it's justified, but get a grip - if I was over there, I'd want phosphorus grenades! __________________ Sucks to be you.

11-09-2005	#7
Robert Following the Get Rich Slow method. Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 316	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? .....eyewitnesses and ex-US soldiers say white phosphorus bombs were used in Fallujah. http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/08/1516227

11-10-2005	#15
Dravyk Easy Like Sunday Morning Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Behind a couch, somewhere in Philly Posts: 7,628	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? Ah, people don't get it at all. Sin, you mistake what I am saying as well. I said at the very beginning that it could be either way, 50-50. Funny how that's been overlooked in just a few posts so that now I'm 100-0 a certain way. Shows more about people wanting to believe the worse, than it says anything about me. __________________ All Of 'Em Mainstream Webmasters New: WebmasterConventions.com

11-10-2005	#17
Timon Hospitality Supervisor Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,338	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? ^ what he said Now who likes onions on his kebab?

11-10-2005	#20
JR Members The global leader in pay-per-view AEBN Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: in my chair Posts: 3,320	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? ok insane people... a YEAR after the fact, an Italian paper runs a story about the US using chemical weapons during that assault. Presumably all the residents of Fallujah that saw thier friends and family wiped out by this "mystery weapon" were not real concerned and did not feel the need to tell ANY media at the time ... because lets face it, Fallujah was about as "pro america" as a city can be. admitting to using phosphorus shells to light up a battlefield is not the same as admitting to targeting civilians in a city with chemical weapons. __________________

11-11-2005	#36
PornoDoggy Cramming 3 people in a Room to Attend Show Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Amid the Cornfields of Illinois Posts: 5,366	Re: US forces used chemical weapons? As I have already stated, I'm not sure that I even consider the munitions in question to be chemical weapons. I have also previously stated in this thread that American troops on the ground have the right to defend themselves with weapons appropriate to the tactical situation. That being said - I no more believe that phosphorus was deployed only for illumination purposes than I do GW (and his lackeys, foreign and domestic) when they say this war has made the U.S. (and its lackeys) any safer from terrorism. Trev, I feel for the local families you are describing. My girlfriend's son has made three combat deployments since 9/11 (he went into Afghanistan in 2001, and has made two deployments to Iraq). We just lost another local kid this week; I've lost count of how many that makes total, but this is the 3rd from the local guard unit this deployment. However ... You have to admit that it's not very likely that U.S. or U.K. troops would be getting killed by Iraqis if we hadn't invaded their country. You have to admit that the absence of a realistic plan for the occupation of Iraq is a big part of why the resistance has taken hold. You'd be a damned fool to try and claim that citizens of the U.S. or the U.K. are in any way safer from the threat of terrorism as a result of the sacrifices of the poor dumb son-of-a-bitches that get to die for their country. The "plan" for Iraq was either the result of stupidity that rivals isolationism and/or appeasement of the Fascists, or stupidity that rivals isolationism/appeasement of the Fascists coupled with a cynicism that the Fascists would envy. There are an awful lot of reasons that turning Iraq into a functional democracy would have failed with three times the number of troops to occupy it. But the cheap-assed method used was guaranteed to fail. Either Bush and his bootlick Blair were stupid enough to believe their own rhetoric about the people greeting us with parades, or they knew damned good and well what kind of chaos would result from this half-assed plan and that the resulting chaos and ensuing conflict was deliberately caused. Happy fucking Armistice Day ... __________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...