yeah, think it was sarin, i dont know... it had everybody worried as hell because supposedly there werent any in Iraq. All I know is it was strapped to an IED that was uncovered and disarmed and immediately things changed. we went from sleeping with our masked packed away to using them as pillows, not to mention the the extra shots we had to carry.

can I say definatively that they came from a large cache stockpiled somewhere? no i cant, can i say that is was found, yep.... but hey Im just a soldier on the ground, you should really listen to someone at cnn who isnt there.

its the same bill theyve tried to ram down the republicans throats three times now, and every time they wind up gagging on it.

when are they going to learn? what they should be doing is passing some meaningful piece of legislation like they always say theyre going to do but then dont. and its things like this that have their approval rating(the lowest in history) beneath george.


oh,,,,I like how you wrote that in the topic, very clever to make it seem like troops were expecting to come home and then had the carpet pulled out from under them.

your right it gives them deniability, but sending in the troops to help, screw that dont need or want them for that. can you imagine-france, they would throw down their weapons and run rearming more insurgents.

BILLARY CLITON


"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b83_1200118934 theres a video of her saying this if you want to take the time to watch it

first it makes some kind of logical sense that if your foresee a problem that might escalate into a war that you talk to everybody that you have to and make sure there is some sort of plan. before the second resolution? omg I would have been talking about it before the first.

as far as threatening his daddy? well his daddy had saddam on the ropes, norm was about to hammer saddam and daddy called him off, seems to me that daddy decided HE wouldnt kill saddam, not the other way around.

you agree with her standing in the way of george bush.? or the politics?

read it however you want there lady but section 3 does not say prove iraq was behind 911. it says very clearly there;

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

meaning that if they fell under any one of these catagories, he indeed was an international terrorist, his country more specifically he did give aid in some form or fashion to a terrorist organization,,,, doesnt say must have given aid to al queada, it says terrorist organization of which there are many you can chose from. for an on going war against terror or those that support them by any means.

but its okay, the skies falling.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1186980879

for those who believe that you cant trust our own government and wish us to run everything by the UN, here is what the UN itself has to say about the topic of WMDs that you crazy people say we never found.

article vi says we have to do what the UN tells us, funny, the UN wasnt around when that particular part of legislation was written.

Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

key word notwithstanding.

are you serious? Alzheimer setting in? He gased his own people to the north, the kurds, and he gased Iran. Hell just on the news today there talking about the execution for Chemical Ali being set and approved, we're not killing him for all the daths, his people are. hundreds of thousand of men women and children, when are YOU going to pull your head out and wake up.

really congress stated that we had to prove saddam was a direct link to 9/11? I missed that, can you provide me with a link to said such claim, or are you trying to write your own history book here?

This is a fact? is it really?
so weve been breaking all kinds of laws over the years havent we.... no no no, let me start again...

if an illegal war breaks out , then who duty or obligation is it to put a stop to it? do we stand on a podium and declare they must quit and wait for their reply, so that we can stand up on a podium again and say it with a more stern voice? someone will be accountable for the atrosities caused by that man, Mr. Hussien, and by god he was. hell by your condemnation and definition of illegal war, then the man (saddam) should have been taken out years before he was, I give you, kuwait, and I give you Iran, bith under your definition would be illegal. Where were you people at on those wars huh, hell where were you on kosovo, where are you now on jafar, and the countless other regions in the world whee genocide is taking place all of which, by your definition, are illegal. Please stand on your podium and with a stern voice tell them to stop.

the problem that elitist and have is they forget a lot of the times that we live in a real world and not a paper one that you can move about at will by simply replacing a comma with a period. we dont live in the courtroom or the classroom, we pop the hood and get our hands dirty for a living. you people, your really just support personnel for those who really work and make the world go round, thanks, can I get some whiteout now, my grammar has been terrible in the rant.

reality being what reality is, your 45 "prominent"jurist have nothing to do with the war.

the sci fi script as you call it is a direct excerpt from the whitehouse, check the link.
we DID NOT act unilaterally, no matter what you would have others believe. or how else would you explain al the different uniforms floating around in iraq,,, you can reasearch that one im tired of arguing with elitist who are actually acting like a highschool kid who gets picked on for being in the chess team. Spain, Polland, Australia, Great Britain, Korea, Japan, Belgium (sorry for the others I left out)..... any of the places ring a bell to you.


"W" has come to grips with the fact that know matter what happens there you people are going to say the opposite and have your media cronies follow suit... you did write a rather long piece here, so I will try to keep up with your "wisdom" as best I can.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1186980879

Links to the UN itself saying that WMDs were there and were in FACT found. once again, a year later you and I are bumping heads on this same topic.
When weapons grade material degrades, which it does over time, then it is no longer considered viable as a weapon, there for bearing that in mind, your side decided to run with the theme that there were no WMDs there at all. It is a flagrant LIE and should be considered gross negligence by the dumb ass democrats who continue to perpetrate the fraud.

/////The problem with this part of your Sci-Fi 'script' is as follows:

- It is exclusively up to the UNSC to rule on non-compliance issues, and subsequent 'appropriate' action, and NOT AT ALL up to Congress, nor the President of the US.

Here is an excerpt from a legal opinion articulated by a large group of US jurists, which was handed to Congress on the matter:


“… It is clear from the resolution that NO INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATE IS AUTHORIZED TO USE ANY VIOLATION BY IRAQ, whether very minor and technical or more serious, AS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO ATTACK IRAQ.

The resolution requires the Security Council to meet immediately and decide what to do about an Iraqi violation--a requirement inconsistent with member states taking unilateral action. Indeed, France, Russia and China, which provided the critical votes to pass the Resolution, issued a statement upon its enactment that "Resolution 1441...excludes an automaticity in the use of force" and that only the Security Council has the ability to respond to a misstep by Iraq. Mexico's Ambassador was explicit in casting his country's vote for the resolution. He stressed that the use of force is only valid as a last resort, "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council."

As law professors and practicing lawyers, we are encouraged that the Security Council has placed itself front and center for the resolution of this issue concerning the disarmament of Iraq. The United Nations charter is a treaty binding on the United States and is part of our supreme Law of the land, by virtue of Article VI of the United States Constitution. We urge the Bush administration to comply with the Constitution, to comply with the UN Charter, and not unilaterally attack Iraq.//////


The problem with what you are saying here is that it was going to take another resolution to certify, no wait, re certify something that had already been passed..... see the problem besides the fact that the UN is completely useless and irrelevant anymore, is that you legal types have been spinning words around for so long that you forget wher it all started from in the first place.

resolutions were passed authorizing "what ever means necessary" to force saddams compliance.

finally you stated that the US is BOUND CONSTITUTIONALLY to adhere to international law? where in the 26 page of the constitution does it say that, please i would love to know that we are to do what the international community tells us to do!!!

think I already covered the by any means nec. part so im not going to rehash when commenting on your signatories. All very learned people I am sure, all have also secured their little one line names for prosperity in the history book, good glad for them. They do not however run the country or the congress or the whitehouse for that matter, yeah they give advise of counsel, whoopy, when it is all said and done theirs is just an opinion on an action- and no fault will have ever landed at their feet.

I could give to hoots less about whether or not you believe in your min in conjuction with you signitory people that we are in violation of "international law" oh my. Bring up some charges bring up some kind of hard evidence (and Im not talking about rearranging words in a sentence to make them fit either, the way lawyers do.) Bring us in front of a judge and let us be sentenced or , have a nice cup of shut the hell up, with all due respect to you fine sir.

umm excuse me, but didnt Al Gore serve a couple months over in Vietnam.. you know his dad Al Gore Sr. was the senator at the time of Tennessee.

*Senator Tim Johnson (D- South Dakota)
(son, Brooks, Served in Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and now works as an Army recruiter. )


*Former Senator & Attorney General John Ashcroft (R- MO)
His son, Andy, is in the Navy and has served in the GulF in support of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
This is a little known fact, because Ashcroft did not want to bring unwanted attention to his son and of course the left-leaning media never did a story on it, because that would hurt their agenda of hurting him.


*Senator Christopher Bond (R - Missouri)
(son, Sam, is in the U.S. Marines and is currently serving in IRAQ.)Kit Bond’s son leaves for Iraq Marine duty

*Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California)
(son, Duane, is a U.S. Marine and Served in IRAQ)


Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina)
(Three sons in military:
*Alan is a captain in the Army National Guard served in IRAQ,
*Addison is serving in the Navy,
*Julian is in the Army National Guard)


Senator elect James Webb (D- WV)
Son is a U.S. Marine and serving in Iraq.

Senator John McCain (R- AZ)
Son is a U.S. Marine serving in Iraq War.


Rep. John Kline, (R-Minn)
(son, Dan, is a Black Hawk Helicopter pilot in the 101st Airborne and serving in IRAQ)


*Senator Joseph Biden (D- Delaware)
( has a son who is a Lawyer and a First Lieutenant in the Delaware Army National Guard.)

Rep. Jim Saxton (D- NJ)
nephew, a Marine rifleman, served in Iraq.


*Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado)
(son, John, serving in the Navy and sent to Iraq)


*Rep. Ike Skelton (R-Missouri)
(has a son serving in Army serving in Iraq)


*Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri)
(has a son, Perry, in the Marine Corps who is a combat engineer serving in Iraq.)

Governor George Pataki (R-New York)
has a son in the Army serving in Iraq name????


John McCain's support of the troops Surge has actually sent his own son, Jimmy, to Baghdad.






You asked, I thought I would help out, or was it a rhetorical question?

also just a little tid bit, a nugget of knowledge if you will, even tho it is 12 to 4 rep to dem, the number as a percentage of their sons verses the populous' sons is much much higher. That is to say per capita there are more of their kids serving than the regular folks.

damn i hate it when i do that

shhhhhhhhhhh....... I dont think anyone's supposed to know

thanks,,, i really needed to laugh. wasnt just a smile, but a full out, butt gustin roar.

medical term and weiners, thanks technical.

http://www.bloodstorages.com/


seems we are ready are doing the blood cord thingy ma bob.... dont give me anymore to drink.

and stem cells are found in the cord? are we not doing something to the effect now? probably not huh, because that means it would be live birth on how they got the cord in the first place(not something an expecting mom and dad are to worried about talkng about thirty seconds after the big squirt.

yea I could use a drink.

and what exactly does that mean, i mean really, what did you just say.