American Decapitated.

[jarhead]

No, Enigma, I am not a life long Republican hater, and I am not one now. I have however come to believe that Bush and his group have done our county great harm by the poorly conceived premptive war in Iraq, and afterwards, a poor management of it in terms of troop strength required, and I see an endless quagmire, with lives and treasure lost, until we finally realize this will end much like Vietnam did. Thousands of lives lost for no real purpose, and little that would resemble a victory.

Mr. Bush has gotten us into a terrible mess by invading Iraq, and this November, I will not vote for him again. I am not alone in this view, and the numbers are growing. The invasion of Iraq has opened the door for a harbor for terror and terrorists in that country, and now the gienie is out of the bottle. Bush pulled the cap off the bottle. It's time for a new watch commander, as the one we have now has proven himself to not be up to the task of cleaning up the mess he created. WMD's was an error or an outright lie, and there never was Al Queda in Iraq, until the Bush sponsered war moved them in, and it's a hornet's nest of them in Iraq now.

I will not just blindly follow a leader, just because of a party label they hoist their colors under. As I have stated before, I don't think Kerry is a great choice for the Dems either, but Mr Bush lost my vote, Kerry did not win it.

 

[Timebuilder]

WMD's was an error or an outright lie, and there never was Al Queda in Iraq, until the Bush sponsered war moved them in, and it's a hornet's nest of them in Iraq now.

There is no evidence that the WMD in was either an error or a lie. There is evidence that Al Queda was in Iraq. Were they there in a office, with recruiting posters? No. But this was happening. In northern Iraq, they found the mocked up fuselage of an airliner to practice takeovers of aircraft.

Previously to our entry, virtually EVERYONE agreed that the intel said the WMD's were there.

Then, we waited.

We built a coalition.

Months passed. Then more months.

We made cases, and made speeches.

More months.

Finally, we went in.

Now, if anyone believes that all of those WMD's just sat there, with the Iraqis failing to move their booty to a new location, then I have to direct your attention to the effective techniques used by police for a drug bust. No talk first, no speeches, a surprise visit during normal sleeping hours. Bingo. You find the dope.

So, not finding the WMD's is far more likely to be attributed to a tactical decision that was made to gain political resolve in a sensitive and diplomatic world. As we have seen, this is not the same world that tyrants and terrorists live in.

Nope, as much as you don't think we should be there, this needed to be done. And we need to keep the CIC that will continue to meet the task.

 

[jarhead]

Timebuilder

Do you distrust David Kay?

While he stated he was very puzzled at Saddam's reluctance to co-operaate with inspections prior to the war starting, a short time ago Mr. Kay stated that there most likely were no WMD, and none will be found.

 

[chawbein]

No, Enigma, I am not a life long Republican hater, and I am not one now. I have however come to believe that Bush and his group have done our county great harm by the poorly conceived premptive war in Iraq, and afterwards, a poor management of it in terms of troop strength required, and I see an endless quagmire, with lives and treasure lost, until we finally realize this will end much like Vietnam did. Thousands of lives lost for no real purpose, and little that would resemble a victory.

By what reasoning do you say that the troop strength is wrong? Where has the US Army/Marines gotten their @sses handed to them in combat? Where has the US Army/Marines run out of reserves in Iraq? How do you come up with "endless quagmire"? Do you think it is impossible to set up a stable democratic government in Iraq? Why? People said that Afghanistan would be a quagmire, and end just like Vietnam, but what happened there? They have been saying it since this current theatre in Iraq opened with the invasion. They said it when US troops stopped because of a sandstorm. This terminology get tossed around too much. Please back up your assertions with evidence and reason.

Mr. Bush has gotten us into a terrible mess by invading Iraq, and this November, I will not vote for him again. I am not alone in this view, and the numbers are growing. The invasion of Iraq has opened the door for a harbor for terror and terrorists in that country, and now the gienie is out of the bottle. Bush pulled the cap off the bottle. It's time for a new watch commander, as the one we have now has proven himself to not be up to the task of cleaning up the mess he created. WMD's was an error or an outright lie, and there never was Al Queda in Iraq, until the Bush sponsered war moved them in, and it's a hornet's nest of them in Iraq now.

You're missing the larger strategy. The war in Iraq was undertaken to create a stable democratic nation in the middle of a region filled with tyranny and opression. The war in Iraq was undertaken to create a focal point for international terrorists i.e. Al Queda (remember that alqueda is a collection of terror groups, not a large group itself). WMD's was just a convenient vehicle to enact the "strategery". I would much rather have a large area sucking terrorists in to be dispatched by our armed forces than to have them looking to spread to other areas. Please comment on my assertions, so that I can understand your thinking.

 

[Timebuilder]

Re: Timebuilder

Do you distrust David Kay?

While he stated he was very puzzled at Saddam's reluctance to co-operaate with inspections prior to the war starting, a short time ago Mr. Kay stated that there most likely were no WMD, and none will be found.

I am certainly suspicious of someone who has changed horses so quickly, after being dismissed from his position. Sounds like sour grapes or a payoff to me. I don't know the man's character, so I have to use the "smell test." It smells funny to me.

 

[jarhead]

chawbein

Not my assertion. That was the assertion of the Army Chief of Staff, General Shinsheiki (sp) The four star general lost his job for publicly stating before the war started, that it would take 250,000 troop on the ground during an occupation of Iraq.

Obviously, there were enough forces to topple Saddam, that's not what I was talking about. It is the occupation strength that is not adequate, and the 4-star lost his job for telling the truth.

We are now extending by three months, the tour of those who were promised that they would be rotated out of theatre after one year. We are stretched so thin, that ill equipped and poorly trained guard units (read: Brig. General Janis Karpinski and her MP unit at Abu Ghriab) are not making up the shortfall predicted by general Shinsheiki. This, in my view, is political, due to elections this fall. Some in congress have hinted, it might require reinstating the draft to make up the shortfall, but that would be suicide for Bush in November, and the time to institute, train and deploy a bunch of new kids will not be in time to stop the insurgents actions during this under manned occupation of a foreign land.

You then state the war was fought to create a stable democratic nation. How quickly you forget. The war was sold to the public and the congress, and to the world at large, to rid Iraq of WMD, which as it turns out, were not there. Then you state that WMD was a pretext to go in and stabilize the region. Great! Just what I want from my elected president, who I voted for. I just LOVE to be lied to for the sake of an unstated agenda. NOT!

 

[jarhead]

Timebuilder

Sometimes it's smart to change horses when you find the one you're on has gone lame. Kay just determined a truth that he had not known, and went with the truth, rather than an entrenched dogma.

 

[Timebuilder]

I have to tell you, that my suspicion is that the one variable that changed was, quite possibly, a large amount of money suddenly coming under Mr. Kay's control. I can't tell you where I heard that.

No other variable that was a matter of "information" was introduced that convinces me that this was a genuine change in professional opinion.

 

[jarhead]

TB

From the many times I have seen David Kay speak, both in congressional hearings and on shows like "Meet the Press", “Hardball”, and other interview shows. I have been impressed with his knowlege and apparent integrity. I don't recall the circumstance as to how or why his post was eliminated (possibly because once the bombs started to fall, there was no further need for inspections?) I just don't know.

If he was "let go" as your earlier post indicated, was he let go because he had failed to produce evidence of, or actual caches of WMD. Man, if so, that's a tough boss. How does one find something that does not exist? Rhetorical question....no need to answer.

 

[Timebuilder]

As we both know, things like integrity can change. I voted for Clinton in 1992. After only two years of that, I had to change my entire view of American politics. In my case, I sought integrity after eschewing it for so many years, the 23 years that I sometimes mention.

I'd like to think that David Kay's change in attitude was a completely genuine and character driven change. That's the kind of person I hope we always find to serve. This week, we all learned that this is not always the case.

Over time, we will learn more.

The fact that they were not found, though, is not necessarily any injdication that the WMD's did not exist. Time will reveal that answer, too.

 

[chawbein]

jarhead

My questions had nothing to do with the toppling of the Iraqi govt. I asked those questions about the occupation. I should have been more specific.

Where is the evidence that the National Guard troops are ill-equipped and poorly trained (the certain members of the MP brigade aside)? I won't come to judgement on that issue until the investigation is complete. You haven't made a case for more troops. You made a few broad generalizations and brought up the opinion of one individual, albeit a very qualified one. You brought up the draft talk (which is a political move by the opponents of the current admin. and nothing more). The insurgents have and are being dealt with right now, and effectively I might add. The military has been given a green lignt (in a political sense) to ask for more troops. They decided to extend a current deployment while the insurgency is dealt with, so it's a temporary measure. New kids would not be as effective anyways, better to hold some veteran troops over and minimize casualties.

As far as being lied too....
How quickly I forget what? It was very clear to me why the US went into Iraq, to get rid of WMD's. I made the assertion of the overall geopolitical strategy. I didn't think I would have to re-state the WMD arguements. Look at it on different levels. The problem of the existance of Iraqi WMD's is part of a sub-strategy, or another theatre in the war on terror. The arguement was real, whether the weapons are found or not. The reasoning was real and compelling. It all fits together into the overall strategy which is to rid the war of international terrorism. I'm not going to state the arguements again, I am just trying to clarify my statement. I'll try to put it more succinctly. Why did the US go into Afghanistan? To destroy the means for international terrorist goups to stage international attacks on the western world. Why did the US go into Iraq? To eliminate the ability of international terrorist groups to obtain WMD's for attacks on the western world. It was also an offensive move to attack the underlying cause of international terrorism, which is tyranny and oppression.

So, I don't think it was ill-conceived or poorly planned. Oh yeah; in case you couldn't tell, I really like 10 cent words!

 

[jarhead]

TB

It's kind of ironic how all people can have life experiences, and sudden epiphanies that cause one to shift their outlook over the course of our lives. You and I seem to have done just that, it's just that in SOME areas, we happen to be 180 degrees out of phase with each other. You voted for Bill Clinton twice, I voted against Bill Clinton twice. I voted really against Al gore, by casting my ballot For George Bush in 2000, but this time around, I personally have developed so much doubt in the president, that I think he needs to be replaced. That's a long debate, and I will not take the lengthy amount of time to go into it here.

I will not assume, that my view is the only view, and I cannot guarantee anyone, that my views will be proven correct or not. They are, however, MY views, and I get to exercise them, just like all other voters at the ballot this fall. When the tally is in, I will accept what the electorate collectively has determined. I will not hate, or demean anyone, whose views differ from mine on national policy. Even within my own family, my brothers and my parents all have a different slant on this war issue, and it's a split family, politicly speaking only. Believe it or not, my youngest brother is so far to the right of center, politically speaking, that some people wonder how we can even talk to each other. The neat thing is, though, that we continue to invite each other over to our homes for bar-b-que, and a few drinks of fine single malt scotch whisky. And, we also discuss lots of things we have in common, like hunting upland game birds, lawn care, how to build a deck.....in short a functional family. I just hope, that as Americans, we can all agree to be able to disagree about some things, without becoming a dysfunctional country.

 

[jarhead]

chawbein

First, sir, I think you are quite articulate. Whether your words are 10 cents or two-bits worth, I understand you quite clearly.

I guess my take on this whole thing is, and will remain different than yours. I am in TOTAL agreement and support of the action in Afghanistan. And, I am in 100% support of our armed forces. I think Rumsfeld, Dick Myers and all in the chain of command are doing the best job anyone could do, given the circumstances they have been put into. I do not condemn the Reservists for the reprehensible behavior of the few in Abu Gharib. And, before anyone starts to ask how we are supposed to interrogate prisoners, I will just fall back on the words of Rumsfeld and Myers, that what went on there was wrong, that it was abuse, and it will not go un-punished.

 

[enigma]

No, Enigma, I am not a life long Republican hater, and I am not one now. I have however come to believe that Bush and his group have done our county great harm by the poorly conceived premptive war in Iraq, and afterwards, a poor management of it in terms of troop strength required, and I see an endless quagmire, with lives and treasure lost, until we finally realize this will end much like Vietnam did. Thousands of lives lost for no real purpose, and little that would resemble a victory.

Mr. Bush has gotten us into a terrible mess by invading Iraq, and this November, I will not vote for him again.

I'm OK with that, it's a free country and your vote is your vote. You don't speak as a lifelong Republican who is disappointed with the current Republican President, you speak as a defender of liberalism and there is a vast difference. I too am not happy with President Bush; but that disappointment will not turn me into a defender of liberalism, as it appears that it has done to you.

I am not alone in this view, and the numbers are growing. The invasion of Iraq has opened the door for a harbor for terror and terrorists in that country, and now the gienie is out of the bottle. Bush pulled the cap off the bottle.

That's BS and you know it. Iraq was a harbor for terrorist well before President G W Bush took office. The terrorist who masterminded the cowardly take over of the Achille Lauro and murder of Leon Klinghoffer was later found in Iraq. Even the mainstream media has reported the terrorist/Iragi connection. Muslim terrorism started in the 70's if not earlier. An honest read of the news will show Muslim terrorism a long time before either Gulf War 1, or Gulf War 2. Your claim that Bush 2 uncapped the bottle is baseless.

It's time for a new watch commander, as the one we have now has proven himself to not be up to the task of cleaning up the mess he created.

What makes you think the Kerry can do any better, Kerry has already publicly stated that the US can't pull out of Iraq. BTW, according to Democratic pollster, Pat Caddell, even the Democratics don't believe that Kerry is the man for the job. On Dennis Millers CNBC/MSNBC show, Caddell stated that polling showed that the Democratic primary voters only voted for Kerry because the media told them that Kerry could beat Bush. Kerry did not come out on top of any catagory of preference. Catagorys such as: the best leader, the best ideas, the best vision for America.

WMD's was an error or an outright lie, and there never was Al Queda in Iraq, until the Bush sponsered war moved them in, and it's a hornet's nest of them in Iraq now.

You continue to show your blindness to the facts. The entire world, including the UN and the American Democratics, stated time after time that WMD existed in Iraq. Their presence was proved when hussein gassed the Kurds. The UN verified the presence of WMD after Gulf War 1, and hussein never proved that those WMD had been destroyed.

I'm glad that Bush sponsored a war in Iraq and drew Al Quida in, that means that Al Quida is spending it's efforts defending muslim Iraq, instead of attacking free America.

I will not just blindly follow a leader, just because of a party label they hoist their colors under. As I have stated before, I don't think Kerry is a great choice for the Dems either, but Mr Bush lost my vote, Kerry did not win it.

I'm sure that there will be other choices on the ballot come November. Why vote for Kerry if he can't win your vote. I may well vote Libertarian, but I dang sure won't vote for John Flipflop Kerrry.

enigma

 

[chawbein]

jarhead

Thanks for the compliment.

I will agree to disagree, but only because you are totally wrong!

I think you make good points, but I still think you should take another look at the current situation in the world. Also, remember that nation-states act in their own best interests at all times.

 

[ThomasR]

Am.Decap.

This quote is about "killing infidels" is always taken out of context by non-Muslims and extremists.First of all when the Quran(Muslim holy book) mentions Infidels it does so in context of the Idol worshipping Arabs of Mecca. The Quran refers to Christians and Jews as "people of the book" believers in only one god. The revelation in the Quran that was being referred to was presented to the prophet Mohamed during a time of war. The Idol worshipping Arabs in Mecca had declared war on Mohammed and his teaching's of one God, the same monothesitc belifs taught by Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Many other prophets. After Mohammed and his follower's were expelled from Mecca this was the revelation he gave:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but dont be the aggressors, because Allah dosent approve of aggression. Fight them wherever they are found, and drive them out from where they drove you out, because being oppressed is worse than being slaughtered...But if they cease being hostile,remeber that Allah is the forgiving, the source of all mercy. But if they continue to oppress people, then battle them until the oppression is no more and justice and faith in God prevail. If they seek peace, then you seek it as well."(Quran 2:191-194)

Dear j.o.sJTIS,

Among your observations, which I believe deserves to be viewed again, I would vote for two others on this site should they decide to run for a political office: Timebuilder and chawbien. Level heads win in the end. Thank You.

 

[blueridge71]

Sorry, Blue, the election this November is an American election, not a Democrat election. That takes place at the national conventions of both the GOP and Dems.

I think that you misread my post. I was primarily referring to statements like those of Ted Kennedy who accused Bush of engineering the Iraq War before 9-11 to win votes. He also said that the Iraqi torture chambers reopened under US management.

These are just two of the incendiary, baseless soundbites that the Democratic Party has been churning out since they voted for the war, then became pacifists.

There is nothing that the Republicans have said that comes close to the bitterness, hatred, and sheer inaccuracy of the Democrats. The Democratic soundbites are what is fostering divisiveness (that they promptly blame Bush for) and a large part of what is encouraging the opposition in Iraq because they think that if Kerry wins, then al-Qaeda is home free.

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Here's some related food for thought...

This quote is about "killing infidels" is always taken out of context by non-Muslims and extremists.First of all when the Quran(Muslim holy book) mentions Infidels it does so in context of the Idol worshipping Arabs of Mecca. The Quran refers to Christians and Jews as "people of the book" believers in only one god. The revelation in the Quran that was being referred to was presented to the prophet Mohamed during a time of war. The Idol worshipping Arabs in Mecca had declared war on Mohammed and his teaching's of one God, the same monothesitc belifs taught by Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Many other prophets. After Mohammed and his follower's were expelled from Mecca this was the revelation he gave:



"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but dont be the aggressors, because Allah dosent approve of aggression. Fight them wherever they are found, and drive them out from where they drove you out, because being oppressed is worse than being slaughtered...But if they cease being hostile,remeber that Allah is the forgiving, the source of all mercy. But if they continue to oppress people, then battle them until the oppression is no more and justice and faith in God prevail. If they seek peace, then you seek it as well."(Quran 2:191-194)


I dont believe the story Rick Mathes told...

Your observations about "The Noble Qur'an" are interesting to me for two reasons. First, your observations about Jews and Christians don't agree with what I've read in the Qur'an. Second, it would appear from comparing the book I hold in my hand with the quote that you produced that there are different ways of interpreting the original text. (Boy, does that sound familiar.)

You state, "The Quran refers to Christians and Jews as 'people of the book' believers in only one god." On the contrary, the Qur'an condemns both Jews and Christians for being polytheists, that is, they believe in more than one God, or more than one element of God. Specifcially condemned are belief in Ezra (Jews) and Jesus (Christians) as the son of Allah.

Qur'an Surah 9 Verses 29-33:

29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jîzya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
30. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
31. They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah) and (they also took as their lord) Messiah, son of Mary, while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded (in the Torah and the Gospel) to worship none but One Ilâh (God - Allah) Lâ ilâha illâ Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).”
32. They (the disbelievers, the Jews and the Christians) want to extinguish Allah’s Light (with which Muhammad [there are Arabic characters here I will not attempt to duplicate] has been sent – Islamic Monotheism) with their mouths, but Allah will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kâfirûn (disbelievers) hate (it).
33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammed [different Arabic characters] with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâm), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah etc.) hate (it).

FROM THE FOOTNOTES:
V. 9:29 Jîzya: a tax levied from the non-Muslim people (Jews and Christians, etc.), who are under the protection of a Muslim government.
V. 9:30 (A) Narrated Ibn ‘Abbâs [Arabic characters] : the Prophet [Arabic characters] said, “Allah said, ‘The son of Adam tells a lie against me though he has no right to do so, and he abuses Me though he has no right to do so. As for his telling a lie against Me, it is that he claims that I cannot recreate him as I created him before; and as for him abusing Me, it is his statement that I have a son (or offspring etc.). No! Glorified to Me! I am far from taking a wife or a son (or offspring etc.)’” (Sahih Al-Bukharî, Vol. 6, Hadîth No. 9).
(B) See the F.N. of (V. 4:40) and the F.N. of (V. 68:42) [Given time and space constraints, I cannot copy those lengthy notes here. In summary, they say that on the Day of Resurrection, or the Day of Judgement [sic], the Jews will be condemned for saying they worshipped Ezra, the son of God, and Christians will be condemned for saying they worshipped Jesus, the son of God.]

Although I cannot claim to be a scholar or even a serious student of the Qur’an, it is plain to me that there is a stark contrast between your assertion of the status of Jews and Christians—“people of the book” believers in one god—and the characterization I have quoted which makes them out to be POLYtheists, and lumps them in with all other pagans.

Now, about your quote: Allow me to offer the same passage (you’ve actually quoted portions of verses 190-193) as it appears in the copy I hold.

Qur'an Surah 2 Verses 190-194

190. And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors. [This vers was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (9:36)].
191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out form where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makka), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (polytheists, and wrong-doers etc.)
194. The sacred month is for the sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the law of equality (Qisâs). Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqûn.

FROM THE FOOTNOTES:
V. 2:190 Al-Jihâd (Islamic holy war) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allah’s word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha ill Allâh which means none has the right to be worshipped except Allah), and His Religion (Islâm) is propogated. By abandoning Jihâd (may Allah protect us from that) Islâm is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islâm on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his inner-most heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.

V. 2:191 Al-Fitnah: (polytheism, to disbelieve after one has believed in Allah, or a trial or a calamity or an affliction, etc.).

V. 2:194 Muttaqûn: pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much …

I’m having a very difficult time reconciling in my mind the picture painted by the portions of the Qur’an that I have read with the picture that many would like to paint of the religion being peaceful and compatible with other God-fearing religions. The Qur’an specifically denounces Christians and Jews for their beliefs in the character of God—it says the polytheism (Al-Fitnah, e.g., Christianity and Judaism) is worse than killing. Furthermore, it condemns all those who practice Islam but do not devote their lives to Jihad, the eradication of these polytheists.

Tell me where I’m mistaken, please.



By the way, I obtained my copy of Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur'an in the English Language in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia while I was there to protect their country from invasion by agressors. I'm sure it rubbed them wrong to be saved by infidels.

The parenthetical notes in the above quoted text are as they appear in the book I have. I made no additions or subtractions, intentionally, except for the notes that replaced Arabic text.

 

[Singlecoil]

There is no evidence that the WMD in was either an error or a lie. There is evidence that Al Queda was in Iraq. Were they there in a office, with recruiting posters? No. But this was happening. In northern Iraq, they found the mocked up fuselage of an airliner to practice takeovers of aircraft.

They later decided that the fuselage you mentioned was used by Iraqi troops to practice counter-terrorism techniques. Kind of like those trucks that we were initially told were for chem warfare, but were later determined to be used to fill standard weather balloons. Kind of like the aluminum tubes which the Department of Energy repeatedly said couldn't be used for uranium enrichment which we now admit were to be used for standard (non-banned) artillery rockets (same diameter as their launch tubes).

 

[KE093]

Today...

Those poor souls, who don't realise what they do in Iraq just made a lot more enemies in America. One of my friend who did not support the war against Iraq(BTW, I'm a hard core pro Bush and war against Iraq... ) came and told me that he realized that Bush senior should have napalmed the nation back in 1991 and made a Walmart and a parking lot for the Walmart. Kudos for those dumb murderers for inviting more B52s over top of their head!