http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0519-01.htm - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0519-01.htm

I made two predictions after Bush was re-elected:

1. There will be a draft before the war in Iraq is over.

2. We will be at war with N. Korea.

According the GEN Abizaid, the top officer in Iraq, the war is going to last "a long, long time." And since the army has missed it's recruitment and retention quotas by nearly 20% the past three months, it looks like prediction #1 isn't so far away.

Cedric wrote: I deffinitly don't want there to be a draft... I'm not too fond of dying young.

Wow, what a panzy.

Cedric wrote: PlentifulBalls wrote: Cedric wrote: I deffinitly don't want there to be a draft... I'm not too fond of dying young. Yea, but if I get drafted i'll go. I'm not going to try and draft dodge. I'll deffinitly go to. I'm just saying I don't want to.

yea same hea i dont want to but if i had to i would.

Bugg wrote: Well, no draft will be made by Republicans. That draft vote in the house a few months ago was made by a dem. and yet the news kept saying it was Bush.

Have you read the bill? It was, indeed, written by a democrat, to protect the poor. It does away with college deferments so that politicians cannot tuck their kids away in college while the po kids do all the dying.

There wont be a draft. It'll never get through congress, regardless of WHO proposes it.

Quit rabble rousing. Its annoying.

Reb Cpl wrote: There wont be a draft. It'll never get through congress, regardless of WHO proposes it. Quit rabble rousing. Its annoying.

I think that you are only going to get more and more annoyed as the house of cards begins falling.  "There will be no draft, period" is about to meet "there aren't enough troops, period."  My prediction is that some new terrah will rear its ugly head requiring drastic action.

Iraq is the first privately owned democracy. If you want to know what it is all about just follow the money. There are dictators all over the world that poss a greater threat then saddam did.

The military over there is securing Iraq's resources. You have an oil man and energy guru in office paying back thier campiagn contributors, what do you expect.

If there was a draft I would go but I would hate having to go kill poor people so some rich men can get richer. The only reason the "insurgents" are in Iraq is because we gave them a standing army to fight over there. Saddam ran a secular regime so the religous extremist hate him as much as us.

A good friend of mine was visiting home from Iraq recently and he told me that those people are so destitute, civilians mixed in with enemy, and they shoot at anything that moves.

WGP guy wrote: Any American should be honored to fight for their country, I know I would be.

If you end up going write and let us know if you want us to go protest the war to make it stop or to go buy a three dollar magnet yellow ribbon for our cars. 

Is everyone here a liberal/democrat?

Bush is doing everything he can ....O and if John Kerry would have been president I'm sure he would've stayed in the war too...How many times did you hear Kerry say,"We will hunt down and kill those terrorists."?  He wanted to be at war too...so you can't blame Bush.  We should just let an awful man(Sadaam) kill people and possible hurt America?  We are THE MOST powerful country in the world, it is our job to protect the world and it's people from harm....I hear the stupid people in Europe(France+Britain) hating Bush and saying that the U.S. should stay out of wordly affairs.  But I want to know is what will they say if something happens to them as it did to Iraq?  Who will they ask for help if a terrorists hits their country....Oh yeah THE USA!!!!

Who here said they wanted Kerry. He lost because he tried to be to much like Bush, he pissed off both sides. Weak canidate is how you got your split...

The problem with going into Iraq is the motivation. There are worse places in the world that need America's help more. Bush and his ilk lied about why they wanted to go in, and that is what upsets most people. I don't think wars are to be taken lightly. Bin laden was in Afganistan, where Bush pulled out troops to send to Iraq.

Sorry if I wont put on a collar that says "GW" I'm critical of every leader.

There is killing done all over the world child. Look at the motivation. The poor people I speak of are the native Iraqis, not the insurgent's that are fighting us. The people we "liberated!"

What you have been brainwashed into believe is that there is a link between Iraq and Al-quada. When Saddam was in control of Iraq, there was no terrorist there (except for a sliver in the rural northern part out of his control). Secular regime - that means no religion! That is what Saddam had. He was an Infedel to the terrorist we are fighting now and they hate him just as much as we do.

They came to Iraq to fight us, after we invaded. That is how they work. They cannot win in a stand up fight so they just nibble us to death. It's Afgan all over.

Your the fool! Why don't you go to your own GOP website and read your energy strategy. Then you will understand why it is important to national security to have a foothold in Iraq for oil.

The price of gas...

You know, diamonds are only worth as much as they are because the Debeers family only releases so many per year.

Until all of you stop buying gasoline for your cars, shut up about this being a war for the rich oil companies. Otherwise, you are as much behind this war as any supposed big business interest.

This latest war in Iraq and Afghanistan is only the latest battle in a conflict going back a thousand or so years. This conflict began long before any of you were born, and it will continue until long after you are gone.

If you live in this country, you support the war, whether you like it or not. The tax you pay on your income, on your property, on your paintballs or big macs in one way or another goes to help fund the war.

It may be cool to protest the government, and the war, to question authority and the like, but you're just peeing into the wind. No one here is special. You may not like it, but no one is required to do what you like.

Many forum members here have been to Iraq or Afghanistan, I have, and unless you have too, keep your uninformed opinions to yourselves, and continue to believe the crap you see on CNN.

With Afganistan I understand. You where there? What unit?

Give me a reason why we went into Iraq besides oil so that I may quickly debunk it.

But I will have to get back to this post tomorrow, spent to much time foruming already tonight.

We didn't go to Iraq to oust Saddam, we went there to make a strong presence in the heart of the middle east, to be a thorn in the heart of those who for 30 years have called us their sworn enemies.

Saddam didn't knock down the world trade center, militant islam did, and putting our main military strength in Iraq has put militant islam in check. We now have troops on the doorstep of Iran and Syria, and our war in Iraq was the doorway that made it possible.

TRAVELER wrote: Until all of you stop buying gasoline for your cars, shut up about this being a war for the rich oil companies. Otherwise, you are as much behind this war as any supposed big business interest. This latest war in Iraq and Afghanistan is only the latest battle in a conflict going back a thousand or so years. This conflict began long before any of you were born, and it will continue until long after you are gone. If you live in this country, you support the war, whether you like it or not. The tax you pay on your income, on your property, on your paintballs or big macs in one way or another goes to help fund the war. It may be cool to protest the government, and the war, to question authority and the like, but you're just peeing into the wind. No one here is special. You may not like it, but no one is required to do what you like. Many forum members here have been to Iraq or Afghanistan, I have, and unless you have too, keep your uninformed opinions to yourselves, and continue to believe the crap you see on CNN.

So, it been going on for a thousand years and will be going on long after I am dead...  Why is it that we are there, then?

TRAVELER wrote: We didn't go to Iraq to oust Saddam, we went there to make a strong presence in the heart of the middle east, to be a thorn in the heart of those who for 30 years have called us their sworn enemies. Saddam didn't knock down the world trade center, militant islam did, and putting our main military strength in Iraq has put militant islam in check. We know have troops on the doorstep of Iran and Syria, and our war in Iraq was the doorway that made it possible.

Well gee, I feel better all ready.  Yes, lets attack the entire Middle East. 

TRAVELER wrote: If I told you what unit, I'd have to kill you, but my last two visits was as a contractor.

Oh please, I will risk you having to kill me, please share with us.  You might be surprised what super secret friends that the smitty's know and what units they are in. 

Darur wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Well, the pot and free love would be nice. But what does it accoplish? You see, the 60s never accomplished anything.  Its one thing to want peace, its a whole nother thing to blissfully ignore the world's problems and pretend they dont exist.

Well, I just want some pot and free love while the world goes to hell in a handbasket. 

In the real world you take a side. In the old days it was a question of religion, and nowadays it's not all that different. The west and the middle east have been in conflict since the crusades, and many in the middle east call the war in Iraq an American crusade.

Our problem is that, for better or worse, our economy, and that of the rest of the world is tied to oil. Since we, and alot of the rest of the world, can't produce all of our own oil, we depend on that which we import from the middle east.

For the most part, Arabs are good traders, and have always been willing to sell us oil, if not always for a good price. The problem is the rise of militant islam in recent decades that is very anti west. They would hurt us in any way they could, and if that meant turning off the oil supply, that would be fine.

As we, and the rest of the world, depend on cheap oil to fuel our economies, it is vital that the oil supply not be restricted. Even if we could supply all of our own oil, many of our allies could not, and the decline in trade due to such shortage would still cripple our economy.

You might think that it's stupid that we have to depend so much on oil, but look outside. You see cars, buses, trains, airplanes. All of these things use oil. But also related are car dealers, repair shops, insurance and finance companies, the list goes on.

The job you have, if you have one, is in one way or another affected by oil.

Militant islam knows this, and they know that if they can control the oil supply they hold a knife to our throat, and we all know that they don't think twice about cutting.

You read and hear about the daily bombings and shootings that are occurring in Iraq, and you might think it laughable if you hear someone saying that our presence there is stabilizing, but in a strategic sense, it is.

Militant islam is throwing everything it has into Iraq to drive us out, thousands have crossed into Iraq from Iran and Syria, and large numbers of Iranian weapons and ordnance and captured or destroyed on a regular basis.

As bad as you might think it is in Iraq now, what would happen if we were to pull out would be far worse. If militant islam took control of the entire middle east, and the production of oil were to stop, or even be temporarily interrupted, it would mean chaos throughout the world.

All of us would be affected, inflation would run rampant, countless people would lose jobs. Things were bad enough in the depression, but there were far less people in the world back then, were the same thing to happen nowadays it would be a calamity.

I never though of Bush as being all that smart of a man, but so far his policy in the middle east has been brilliant. No one who knew of the plans would have ever hoped that it would have worked as well as it has.

I don't like to see soldiers hurt or killed, I was a medic during my time in the Army, and I would do whatever it took to save a life. Many have died in Iraq, but in comparison, drivers who talk on cell phones while driving kill 2600 people in the US every year on average.

Anyway, I'm done arguing, my fingers are getting tired. 

Pariel wrote: TRAVELER wrote: Until all of you stop buying gasoline for your cars, shut up about this being a war for the rich oil companies. Otherwise, you are as much behind this war as any supposed big business interest. This latest war in Iraq and Afghanistan is only the latest battle in a conflict going back a thousand or so years. This conflict began long before any of you were born, and it will continue until long after you are gone. If you live in this country, you support the war, whether you like it or not. The tax you pay on your income, on your property, on your paintballs or big macs in one way or another goes to help fund the war. It may be cool to protest the government, and the war, to question authority and the like, but you're just peeing into the wind. No one here is special. You may not like it, but no one is required to do what you like. Many forum members here have been to Iraq or Afghanistan, I have, and unless you have too, keep your uninformed opinions to yourselves, and continue to believe the crap you see on CNN. Simple truth is, yes, as a single person, you don't matter. Realize that. By realizing that, you realize that you have to become part of a group, which can be manipulated in sometimes extraordinary ways by people who have any sort of intelligence. Look how the media, our government, and all our anti-war protesters do it-it's not hard. Whether or not we're peeing into the wind here is up for debate-we're here to understand each other's views, and obviously what is said here should have some sort of affect on what each of us thinks. Also, the simple fact that you're posting here shows that you don't think you're peeing into the wind-otherwise why would you be wasting your time here? No, you do not support the war simply by buying gas. Buying gas is one of those necessities of life, which you personally have no control over. Don't go saying that every person is equally responsible for this war simply because they buy gas. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You may be a cause of the war, but that does not mean you support it. Also, simply serving overseas with our armed forces doesn't make you enlightened. Nor does not serving in our armed forces automatically make you uninformed. If you think that all the people serving in our armed services are somehow more enlightened than the academics, politicians, and all the rest of our citizens, you've got another thing coming. .Ryan wrote: Anyway, I almost want us to instate a draft. It would almost be worth the lesson to the American people not to vote corrupt people into office for stupid reasons. Even thinking that is sick-you're playing with people's literal lives here. Grow up: war isn't pretty, it's totally designed to destroy.

Hell, I pee into the wind all the time, it sucks when it gets blown back into your face, but then..

Being a politician or an academic doesn't make you more informed than anyone else either, I would hold a garbage truck driver in higher esteem than either of those two classes.

But, I have to say a soldier's perspective on military matters during wartime is probably more enlightened than that of someone who gets their news second or third hand.

Bugg wrote: Nickodemus wrote: The military over there is securing Iraq's resources. You have an oil man and energy guru in office paying back thier campiagn contributors, what do you expect. You are almost as dumb as .Ryan "US is only doing it for the oil!!!' Then tell me, why are our prices still as high as the sky? If you dont' come up with an answer to that, please shut up. I know you won't get an answer, couse it's not true!

Marathon oil posted record profits, along with all of the other oil companies, avering a 75% increase in profits. They just aren't passing on the savings to you.

Reb Cpl wrote: There wont be a draft. It'll never get through congress, regardless of WHO proposes it.

Whaaat? If the prez opted to attack Mars they would support it. Regardless, it will come down to pulling out or drafting in the very near future. We cannot support this mission with our forces for very much longer, especially with the recruitment numbers going down. The Army missed recruitment last year by 15,000. That is the better part of a DIVISION. Imagine if the 82nd airborne division just decided not to go.

Quit rabble rousing. Its annoying.

What will you call my predictions when they come true? I predicted on my first day on this forum that the coalition would fall apart, and it has-the gov't doesn't even keep track of the coalition of the "willing". I predicted that the "small pox threat" wasn't a threat at all, and the vaccination program ended a month later. As far as my prediction of being at war with N. Korea, I read yesterday that their food reserves from the world food bank are now empty. I will not be surprised if there is a nuclear test in N. Korea in the next few weeks.

bluemunky42 wrote: i'd run if they tried to draft me. or pay the price, unless it's outrageous like 20 thousand or something.

This post made me laugh.

:)

goodsmitty wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: There wont be a draft. It'll never get through congress, regardless of WHO proposes it. Whaaat? If the prez opted to attack Mars they would support it. Regardless, it will come down to pulling out or drafting in the very near future. We cannot support this mission with our forces for very much longer, especially with the recruitment numbers going down. The Army missed recruitment last year by 15,000. That is the better part of a DIVISION. Imagine if the 82nd airborne division just decided not to go.   Quit rabble rousing. Its annoying. What will you call my predictions when they come true? I predicted on my first day on this forum that the coalition would fall apart, and it has-the gov't doesn't even keep track of the coalition of the "willing". I predicted that the "small pox threat" wasn't a threat at all, and the vaccination program ended a month later. As far as my prediction of being at war with N. Korea, I read yesterday that their food reserves from the world food bank are now empty. I will not be surprised if there is a nuclear test in N. Korea in the next few weeks.

forget it gsmitty.  A prophet is hated on his own forum.  Besides, most of those forumers who stood by all of that bogus evidence and used to argue with you have slunk away in recent months.  I guess they are having yard sales, selling all of that duct tape and plastic wrap, tending to those small pox vaccination burns, anxiously awaiting the next change to the terror warning color bar (ain't changed but once since the election), coming back under aliases or advancing patriotism to the gullible on the Nickolodeon forum... 

Bugg what did you mention that I didn't counter post? Try actually reading.

Going over there to have acess to other countries is rediculous. That is an after the fact advantage, not something worth going to war for. We have the most versital and mobile military in the world - if there is a problem, we can get there.

By that same logic we should invade China so that we are closer to North Korea. Pre emptive and doesn't pull weight.

Try again, I know that "GW" collar is heavy. Paintball, bunch of middle class white kids... suprised there arn't more who share your political views on here.

TRAVELER wrote: In the real world you take a side. In the old days it was a question of religion, and nowadays it's not all that different. The west and the middle east have been in conflict since the crusades, and many in the middle east call the war in Iraq an American crusade. Our problem is that, for better or worse, our economy, and that of the rest of the world is tied to oil. Since we, and alot of the rest of the world, can't produce all of our own oil, we depend on that which we import from the middle east. For the most part, Arabs are good traders, and have always been willing to sell us oil, if not always for a good price. The problem is the rise of militant islam in recent decades that is very anti west. They would hurt us in any way they could, and if that meant turning off the oil supply, that would be fine. As we, and the rest of the world, depend on cheap oil to fuel our economies, it is vital that the oil supply not be restricted. Even if we could supply all of our own oil, many of our allies could not, and the decline in trade due to such shortage would still cripple our economy. You might think that it's stupid that we have to depend so much on oil, but look outside. You see cars, buses, trains, airplanes. All of these things use oil. But also related are car dealers, repair shops, insurance and finance companies, the list goes on. The job you have, if you have one, is in one way or another affected by oil. Militant islam knows this, and they know that if they can control the oil supply they hold a knife to our throat, and we all know that they don't think twice about cutting. You read and hear about the daily bombings and shootings that are occurring in Iraq, and you might think it laughable if you hear someone saying that our presence there is stabilizing, but in a strategic sense, it is. Militant islam is throwing everything it has into Iraq to drive us out, thousands have crossed into Iraq from Iran and Syria, and large numbers of Iranian weapons and ordnance and captured or destroyed on a regular basis. As bad as you might think it is in Iraq now, what would happen if we were to pull out would be far worse. If militant islam took control of the entire middle east, and the production of oil were to stop, or even be temporarily interrupted, it would mean chaos throughout the world. All of us would be affected, inflation would run rampant, countless people would lose jobs. Things were bad enough in the depression, but there were far less people in the world back then, were the same thing to happen nowadays it would be a calamity. I never though of Bush as being all that smart of a man, but so far his policy in the middle east has been brilliant. No one who knew of the plans would have ever hoped that it would have worked as well as it has. I don't like to see soldiers hurt or killed, I was a medic during my time in the Army, and I would do whatever it took to save a life. Many have died in Iraq, but in comparison, drivers who talk on cell phones while driving kill 2600 people in the US every year on average. Anyway, I'm done arguing, my fingers are getting tired.

• location
• a world view at the time that Saddam was problem that still needed to be removed
• Iraq was a known financial, logistical, personel base of support

We already had a foot hold in Afganisan which at the time is terrorist central. Then we moved troops out of their and over to Iraq.

That would be like Uncle Ben getting into office then moving troops off the Korean parellel to go secure rice fields in Viet Nam.

I am sorry if I do not believe in your "end of days" constant war mindset. I have more hope for a peaceful world then antagonizing a Bee hive to steal the honey.

We create our own conflict - US trained and equiped Taliban during the cold war to fight the russians. Then later we bomb an area that upsets their leader and they turn on us.

Bush energy strategy - give breaks to manufactorers and owners to have big SUV's and trucks that guzzle gas. If you look at his policy, it is for more consumer spending energy.

If he was concerned about energy and terrorism he would have not canceled the program to buy up the loose nuclear material floating around from the fall of the USSR. You can blend that stuff down and make it fuel for power plants that is worth more then what you bought the material for. He could then take this blended down material and make a national energy reserve. Now it's still on ther global black market. 2 college trained physicist, three good machinist, and a lot of money plus an isolated working area and someone can have a nuke.

That nuclear buyup program was the most effective thing we had, to get the floating fissable material off the market. Now it will be a lot longer before we have it all. This program was a lot cheaper then a War on life and money. With the energy reserve it would more then pay for it self. The money fronted to get the material wouldn't go to terrorist buying weapons. Why would they sell nukes? It's the end of the loop for the scariest threat there is. Mostly, it's old generals selling it off to rebuild. They don't want them, there to expensive to maintain and they would rather have computers and people eating.

This irrated me greatly coming from our "democracy spreader."

STD wrote: America is now on the path of becoming the British of old, sooner or later unless that is if, America decides to stop being an instigator we are going to get stopmed by some less armed, less trained, less powerfull force.(sound familiar anyone, Vietnam?)

 We are nothing like the old British empire, we have no colonies,and we don't force anyone to be a colony. If we did, then Mexico, Trippoly (Tsunisia as we callit now) Germany, France, Japan, nearly all the Islands in the Pacific, South Korea, and many others whould all be U.S. colonies instead of independant Nations.

If you don't like your own country, the U.S., the one that gives you the right to critisize your own government, Then move to France. Why live in a country you hate?

STD wrote: MT. Vigilante: I was making a reference to the fact that the british empire had infulence over almost every stinking place on this planet. The US of A has military bases in almost every corner of the globe...

Yes we do, but those bases are there because the Host nation allowes us to put them there, If the Host government asks us to remove them then we have to and will remove them.

Bugg wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: Yes we do, but those bases are there because the Host nation allowes us to put them there, If the Host government asks us to remove them then we have to and will remove them. Not true, Just like embassies, the land is officaly part of the USA. If someone steps foot onto the land we can shoot them without reprocussions

Yes you are right about that, but we have to remove an embassy as well if the Host nation tells us to, and bases are the same way.

Dazed wrote: MT. Vigilante wrote: If you don't like your own country, the U.S., the one that gives you the right to critisize your own government, Then move to France. Why live in a country you hate? Because its everyone's right to offer our opinions and try to make this country into the best country they can. If you don't like that, then you are the one who needs to move friend. I would say that a country with a strong socialist government would be the place for you. Our right to hold our government accountable is just as precious as our right to, say, bear arms.

You are right about everyones opinion. I'm sorry I said that about moving to France, it was a moment of passion, I seem to get a little to worked up when talking about subjects like this.

Monk wrote: $100 says we go to war with Syria/Iran before we go to Korea. Plus we would go after China before Korea. There would be an almost complete vote to not have another Korean Conflict. Thats one of the reasons we havent gone back to Vietnam.

I agree, no body wants another korea. But I also don't think that we will go to war with China, right now our relations with China are not that bad, at least not as bad as our relations with Russia during the cold war. Plus, China is not interested in concuring the world, they just want to cotroll southeast asia, which is not a good thing, but they definately don't want to go to war with the U.S., they know that even though thier army is larger than ours, ours is more powerfull and so a war with us whould be very costly. After all, look at the Korean war, the U.S. military there was extremely ill-equipt and we still beat back china's military and kept them from taking over South Korea.

Bugg wrote: Another Korea won't happen, nto couse we won't go in, believe me we will It won't be anywhere near the old one couse China wont cross the yellow river and attack as like they did before. They don't want korea to have nukes as much as we don't want them too. Believe me, we will go in, and it will be US, Japan, SK, and China against NK, guranteed

I agree, if another Korea does happen, thats how it will happen. But you forgot the UK, they don't want N. Korea to have nukes either.

Bugg you missed my point. Of course we have a large presence in South Korea. We already had a presence in the middle east outside of Iraq also - that is what my point is. When we are hunting terrorist, why move troops out of Afganisitan, where we know terrorist are, into Iraq, where they were not until after we invaded. They fight by nibbleing, then fadeing into the backround... there will never be a standing army battle between insurgents and America. America's military is a broad sword, not a scapel. They are trained to kill, not be police.

Why did the administration lie and make it all so confusing to the public, and not be direct with their intentions? I bet you think those people over there are all the same and it doesn't matter who gets killed so long as it's not us. You dehumanize your enemy, then it is easier to do what we are doing.

If we went to war with China we would have to have a draft. America's force is spread thin already because of this ill planned campaign, why don't you war hawks either go sign up and make your personal sacrifice or work towards peace?

Bugg wrote: Another Korea won't happen, nto couse we won't go in, believe me we will It won't be anywhere near the old one couse China wont cross the yellow river and attack as like they did before. They don't want korea to have nukes as much as we don't want them too. Believe me, we will go in, and it will be US, Japan, SK, and China against NK, guranteed

Bugg, you truly are the most ignorant person I have ever heard speak. From your "we can shoot anyone we want without repERcussions" to this garbage, your fascism-spewing machine is without equal.

N. Korea has 1,000,000 soldiers ready to fight. Their #1 export and industry is weapons. Next to us, they build the best ballistic missiles in the world. If they decided to invade S. Korea right now, we're screwed. Oh, without NATO, being FRANCE  and Germany, that is.

There was a little news story that hit the press two days ago that did not get much airtime. N. Korea's World Food Bank supply has run out, so their starvation is about to become acute. This thing with Korea is likely to come to a head soon. I would not be surprised if they have their first nuclear test within the next month.

BlackDeath7 wrote: Smitty, you are wrong about your prediction #1.  It hasn't happened yet.  You are making assumptions, common for your character.  Neither have happened or will happen.  Thanks for your thought.

Neither has happened yet, because they are PREDICTIONS. You misread my post, which is common for your character. I highly recommend school.

DBibeau855 wrote: Im tired of this. During Clintons presidency he IGNORED the terrorists. As a result, they thrived and flourished all over the middle east. He let them go unchecked. He messed with the armed forces like a monkey in a mercedes. He cut funding for the CIA and FBI and tied their hands behind their backs. He made it illeagal for them to officialy communicate and compare notes. Result? The US was attacked. For the second time, this time, it worked, and more people died. But this time. Bush did something about it. So please! Quit using the war to bash the president. I mean jesus, give it a rest. Im two shakes of a lambs tail from asking you two to make me a recording so i can fast forward through the crap ive heard before.

So Clinton is stupid also. But he isn't president anymore, so back to bashing Bush and his whimsical foreign policy that is going to fulfill my two predictions:

1. Drafting soldiers for Iraq, and

2. War with N. Korea.

brihard wrote: Since the war there have been at least two incidents of improvised explosive devices used against troops that used 155mm artillery shells containing binary nerve agent compounds as the primary explosive.

So nerve agents can be used as explosives? Explain to me how a nerve agent which ties up the acetylcholine receptors in your nerve synapses explodes.

Some time ago, two dozen artillery shells were discovered in an ammunition dump that contained chemical agents. This story lasted only a few days in the liberal media.

Find the story. You can't because it never happened. No chemical weapons have ever been found in Iraq. And since the first quote is a bunch of crap, I'll assume this is as well.

Some things to think on: DID YOU KNOW THIS? - Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq? ......................... Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.

But is it enough for you to risk your life? Talk is cheap.