Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something

[Diemen]

No, the thread title is not a joke from The Onion or some satire site - it's an actual headline on CNN.com - Rumsfeld: Lack of Evidence.... Does anybody else find this funny in a disturbing sort of way?

More from our peace-loving Defense Secretary:

"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said.

Excuse me? So...what you're saying is, if you find something, then you'll use that as an excuse to go to war with Iraq, and if you don't find anything, then you'll use that as an excuse to go to war with Iraq?

Interesting.

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

they really are getting fucking desperate now.
it's like not allowing cops to search your house without a warrant. YOU MUST BE HIDING SOMETHING! like your right to not be searched without a warrant! DOH.

why doesn't the U.S send undercover russian scientists and attempt to sell Iraq some WMD's and declare iraq an enemy as soon as they cross the border! entrapment ahoy!

 

[speedracer]

Hans Blix is saying essentially the same thing.

I thought the point was that Iraq was in 1998 known to possess forbidden material that they're supposed to show UNMOVIC that they have already disposed of or will dispose of immediately.

1998 was when UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq, frustrated by a lack of cooperation on the part of the Iraqi government.

The forbidden material includes at least 1.5 tons of VX nerve agents, growth media for 20,000 liters of biological warfare agents, 15,000 shells for use in biological warfare and 6,000 chemical warfare bombs, according to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm

 

[Dreadsox]

I love how a quote can be taken out of the context of the conversation.

#1 Iraq had the stuff in 1998
#2 Iraq kicked out the people who were there to make sure it was destroyed.
#3 Iraq is supposed to prove it was destroyed.
#4 Iraq has not explained nor given any evidence to show what happened to the WMD.

#5 Rumsfeld makes his statement.....makes a good headline......it gets twisted into something it is not.





White House promises 'smoking gun intelligence'
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 16/01/2003)


White House officials have reassured Republicans by signalling that America and Britain are prepared to release powerful intelligence evidence to cement the case for war against Iraq.

Andy Card, the White House chief of staff, and Karl Rove, President George W Bush's chief political strategist, have each indicated privately that the administration has proof that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Card received blunt warnings from conservative Republican senators last week that Mr Bush had to produce a much more concrete case for war if he hoped to keep public support.

Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said more information should be released and asked: "What is the connection between Iraq and al-Qa'eda?" According to sources at the private meeting, Mr Card is understood to have urged him: "Don't worry."

Mr Rove is believed to have used similar language during private briefings to politicians in Washington.

He strongly suggested that the Bush administration already possesses a piece of intelligence from the CIA or MI6 that would amount to the "smoking gun" critics are calling for.

 

[Dreadsox]

Excuse me? So...what you're saying is, if you find something, then you'll use that as an excuse to go to war with Iraq, and if you don't find anything, then you'll use that as an excuse to go to war with Iraq?

Interesting.

From your own article it clarifies his position and that of the United States very clearly. If you want to take to quote and twist it that is fine.

"Rumsfeld said the United States and the United Nations have no obligation to prove that Iraq has continued efforts to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instead, he said, Iraq must prove that it has abandoned them."

You may not agree with the position. I have said I am not for war without the UN unless Bush can make a compelling case. I can respect that. I really have little respect fo things taken out of context the way this thread does.

If you have been reading the news for the past few weeks, you would not have taken the quote completely out of context and twisted it to support your anti-war agenda. His quote is completely consistent with the posisiton that US has held from the start of this. The evidence is there that the weapons existed in 98 and nothing has been shown to prove what happened to the stuff. Geee, ya think it could be hidden after 5 years?

 

[melon]

Well, I shall await the "smoking gun" evidence.

Remember: the ideal window to attack Iraq this year doesn't end until March methinks...

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

So far discovered today in Iraq

Missile Parts......arrived in Iraq sometime in 2000-2001 that were illegal.

11 warheads empty and a 12th that they are not saying much about.


Hmmmmm......


Now we have a state larger than CA and 100 inspectors with 8 helecopters to move around in and they found the "Needle in the Haystack"

Want to bet they find more?


Peace

 

[nbcrusader]

Those war heads weren't for illegal chemicals - Saddam uses them to sprinkle cocoa powder on his enemies' lattes.

 

[gvox]

Um, weren't those 'warheads' that they found actually thought to be circa 1980s and imported? Imported from where?? If those warheads have "made in the USA" stamped on them, that's pretty damn hypocritical. What did the supplier intend for the Iraqis to do with them, make palm tree planters out of them?

I recall back in the other Bush war when someone said, perhaps rather satirically: (paraphrased) 'but of course we know they have them, we just had to check the reciepts...yep, we shipped them there allright so they must have them'

 

[speedracer]

Um, weren't those 'warheads' that they found actually thought to be circa 1980s and imported? Imported from where?? If those warheads have "made in the USA" stamped on them, that's pretty damn hypocritical. What did the supplier intend for the Iraqis to do with them, make palm tree planters out of them?

Careful with your facts, buddy.

"The warheads were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980s," Mr Ueki said in Baghdad on Thursday.

 

[gvox]

Lets not get carried away here speedracer. Nothing of what I said was stated as fact.

I said, they were 'thought to be circa 1980s and imported'...that is what was repeated to me on the idiot box that reported this 'find' to me today, just like everyone else's information.

I can tell you one thing that IS fact though: warheads, missile parts etc etc change over a 20 year span, and most are in many ways unique in design and materials to the country that exported them and the time span they were produced. Not only that, but if a fully trained weapons inspection team deems a missile component to be 'similar' to something they've been trained to recognize, its safe to assume that they aren't too far off the mark in their analysis of said missile component.

 

[speedracer]

gabrielvox,

Do you know what you're talking about regarding specifications of warheads? I know nothing about the subject, so I have to take you at your word here. No doubt STING will want to insert his $.02.

It's entirely possible that those warheads came from France or the USSR, too.

But assuming the worst--that those warheads are labeled "General Electric" or "Boeing" or "Philips," I don't see why this precludes the US from demanding that Iraq disarm in the manner prescribed by the UN, and the UN has been very clear that the onus is upon Iraq to destroy its WMD materials or tell UNMOVIC where they're keeping their stash so that UNMOVIC can dispose of it.

People bring up the US support for Iraq vs. Iran in the 1980s as if it compels the US to pretend like Iraq is still its ally, and I've never understood it. Once you create a monster, the proper thing to do is to tame or destroy it, not to pretend it doesn't exist, right?

 

[gvox]

Speedracer,

Im not going to argue with you because I already told you I initially was not making a factual statement but a personal opinion (like 99.9% of alot of the commentary on here). What I did state as fact about missile design and origin IS fact.

My "made in the USA" stamp comment was a simplified statement. Quite obviously I dont expect a literal Made In The USA stamp to be emblazoned on these warheads. Nor would I expect to see a Made In USSR or Made In France or Made In China or Made in Boston stamp. And in my reply to you I don't know if you noticed but I was very careful not to state that they came from the US.

HOWEVER, when all the facts are known, given that A. the US DID export arms to Iraq and B. that it is expected that the warheads were imported, I would not at all be surprised to find out they came from an American arms factory in some way or form. Maybe not, granted.

You wonder why people keep coming back to that fact, that the US supplied arms to a dictatorship...perhaps from inside it looks like the two countries were 'allies', although that in itself is a troubling concept given that one of them is supposed to be democratic and one is a dictatorship, but to the outside world it looks like another example of US foreign policy gone horribly wrong. It's becoming somewhat of a recurring theme now isn't it? How many more madmen/countries are going to pop up with origins connected to the US somehow?

Of course overshadowing all this is of course the fact that Iraq probably feels it has a right to arm itself just like any other country in the world, including its close neighbors.

Anyways my final comment as Ive stated on other boards is that until I see Iraq even close to having the capability to deliver a missile to Allied soil, the US has no business in the Middle East. Isreal alone could pummel (not to mention nuke) the living hell out of Iraq in the blink of an eye. For all we know, Iran probably could too.

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

It is not a "fact" that the USA exported weapons to Iraq in the 1980s. Any look at Iraqi weapons tables will show that 80% of Iraq's military weapons came from the Soviet Union. The rest came from China mainly with smaller numbers from South Africa, Germany and France. My sources come from the International Institute for Strategic Studies based in London and is supported by multiple other sources.

Iraq did recieve intelligence from US satellites, food, trucks, and transport helicopters from the USA. But Iraq did not recieve US weapons. US military forces did not encounter any US weapons in the 1991 Gulf War.

Iraq does have a few US made tanks and artillery that were captured from Iran in the Iran/Iraq War in the 1980s. It is true that Iran used to be a Client state of the USA before the Shah was overthrown.

But if you think I am wrong, please list the name of the US weapon system and quantity that you believe was sold to Iraq and the source of your information.

By the way, Iraq has Scud missiles that can reach several US allies in the region.

 

[Zoomerang96]

this will be interesting nevertheless.

 

[Dreadsox]

From what I read yesterday...

The Warheads arrived between 84-86.

The missile parts arrived within the past two years. Which makes me wonder which country they came from.

 

[diamond]

From what I read yesterday...

The Warheads arrived between 84-86.

The missile parts arrived within the past two years. Which makes me wonder which country they came from.

Dread-
u got it right.
the author of this thread has it wrong

Hold your ground.

Diamond.

 

[gvox]

By the way, Iraq has Scud missiles that can reach several US allies in the region.

Who, Israel? Kuwait? Defenseless they are not.

Listen the real madman on the planet with both the behaviour as evidenced by an atrocious history of foreign policy and enough weapons of mass destruction to obliterate every man woman and child on earth is: GEORGE BUSH. How many people has Saddam killed, maybe a couple of thousand if you beLIEve what they want you to? In the last century the US killed hundreds of thousands of people as a result of its 'behaviour' and with ITS 'weapons of mass destruction'. So maybe the countries of this planet should band together and militarily intercede to stop him before he kills us all. Just following your logic, though I doubt in the manner you had anticipated.

When is the US going to destroy it's weapons of mass destruction? Can we send inspectors over there to monitor the proceedings?

Don't quote UN resolution infractions of Iraq to me, that's bollocks. If anyone in the UN had any balls the US would be knee deep in infractions.

BTW, since you love the military so much and have so many friends going over, why aren't you? Reading your various other posts I'm sure you are just what the military is looking for.

 

[speedracer]

Who, Israel? Kuwait? Defenseless they are not.

Listen the real madman on the planet with both the behaviour as evidenced by an atrocious history of foreign policy and enough weapons of mass destruction to obliterate every man woman and child on earth is: GEORGE BUSH. How many people has Saddam killed, maybe a couple of thousand if you beLIEve what they want you to? In the last century the US killed hundreds of thousands of people as a result of its 'behaviour' and with ITS 'weapons of mass destruction'. So maybe the countries of this planet should band together and militarily intercede to stop him before he kills us all. Just following your logic, though I doubt in the manner you had anticipated.

When is the US going to destroy it's weapons of mass destruction? Can we send inspectors over there to monitor the proceedings?

Don't quote UN resolution infractions of Iraq to me, that's bollocks. If anyone in the UN had any balls the US would be knee deep in infractions.

BTW, since you love the military so much and have so many friends going over, why aren't you? Reading your various other posts I'm sure you are just what the military is looking for.

You seem to neglect the fact that Saddam tortures and starves his own citizens, which (at least to me) constitutes a human rights and humanitarian crisis and justifies his removal. Iraq being a police state, we don't know exactly how many people he's imprisoned and tortured simply for not liking him, but I'd bet it reached the hundreds of thousands.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--if Iraq weren't sitting atop the world's second largest oil reserves, everybody on this planet would be calling for the UN to lead a "humanitarian intervention" a la Kosovo.

 

[JOFO]

yeah, let's keep this within the realm of reality here. even though bush is a cowboy idiot (thank god for colin powell) he wouldn't have his own nephew executed to make an example of.

for those who can't wait to respond with "how do you know he wouldn't? he's evil blah blah blah......" save it.

 

[Zoomerang96]

jofo: how do you know he wouldnt?

oh...

 

[gvox]

You seem to neglect the fact that Saddam tortures and starves his own citizens, which (at least to me) constitutes a human rights and humanitarian crisis and justifies his removal. Iraq being a police state, we don't know exactly how many people he's imprisoned and tortured simply for not liking him, but I'd bet it reached the hundreds of thousands.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--if Iraq weren't sitting atop the world's second largest oil reserves, everybody on this planet would be calling for the UN to lead a "humanitarian intervention" a la Kosovo.

1. Saddam being a human rights/humanitarian crisis....so is he the first in a long line of countries who are now going to 'get it'? Where was the US in Rwanda?

2. It 'reached' the hundreds of thousands. Really? By whose account. Now for a real fact, the estimates for the death toll of innocent civilians for the first 3-4 weeks of a US campaign against Iraq are close to a MILLION. That's people the Bush will kill, not Saddam.

3. The 'entire world' is calling on Bush to halt his march to war. Why isn't he listening?

 

[speedracer]

1. Saddam being a human rights/humanitarian crisis....so is he the first in a long line of countries who are now going to 'get it'? Where was the US in Rwanda?

Possibly. Might have to do the same with North Korea, I don't know. It'd be easier if we could get the rest of the world to help.

2. It 'reached' the hundreds of thousands. Really? By whose account. Now for a real fact, the estimates for the death toll of innocent civilians for the first 3-4 weeks of a US campaign against Iraq are close to a MILLION. That's people the Bush will kill, not Saddam.

The hundreds of thousands of victims of Saddam's regime was my own reckoning, as I made clear.

Seeing as how you claim this estimate as a "fact" and not as your own reckoning, can you post a link explaining this estimate?

Hopefully it isn't like the estimate of 500,000 civilians killed by UN sanctions that was graciously supplied by the Iraqi government.

3. The 'entire world' is calling on Bush to halt his march to war. Why isn't he listening?

Because he thinks he's right. How about that.

And the reason the 'entire world' thinks otherwise? As I've mentioned several times over, I really think the 'entire world' is seduced by the thesis that the war is a ploy to secure Iraq's oil reserves.

 

[Dreadsox]

1. Saddam being a human rights/humanitarian crisis....so is he the first in a long line of countries who are now going to 'get it'? Where was the US in Rwanda?

So inaction in one area means you would support inaction in another?

2. It 'reached' the hundreds of thousands. Really? By whose account. Now for a real fact, the estimates for the death toll of innocent civilians for the first 3-4 weeks of a US campaign against Iraq are close to a MILLION. That's people the Bush will kill, not Saddam.

Sorry, but the UN report was based on the tactics that they expect Saddam to use this time around. IE hiding his troops and equiptment in cities and near schools and mosques. If he is less than forward about what happened to all of the WMDs and his is willing to hide his stuff in Urban areas, he is responsable.

3. The 'entire world' is calling on Bush to halt his march to war. Why isn't he listening?

To quote someone:

Really by whose account? Why isn't the entire world calling on Saddam to be honest with inspectors? Why isn't the entire world calling on Saddam to respect the agreement he signed 12 years ago? Maybe because it is easier to paint the US the bad guy than to actually demand accountability from Iraq.

Why isn't Bush listening? Do you have proof that he is not? He has repeatedly worked through the UN to resolve this crisis. How long do we have to wait? Why shouldn't he move troops in preparation for war? Maybe we should wait until summer when it is really hot in the desert to go fight?

March to war. I am so tired of Bush being painted a "War Monger". Iraq has been in violation of UN resolutions for 12 years. You write as if Bush woke up and decided to all of a sudden deal with the problem all of a sudden.

 

[gvox]

"...Bush woke up.."

Naw, he's still sleeping, that's the problem.

Oh, I forgot, its cowardly for Hussein to bunker his troops around his cities and towns to fortify them, but courageous for US warplanes to bomb the living hell out of a country for a few weeks from the safety of the sky and then send in ground troops only when there will be little or no resistance?

Let's see the US cross the desert and fight Iraq man to man. Now that would be a good show.

I repeat my challenge: anybody who thinks the US should be in Iraq in this world can go sign up, pick up a gun and march across that desert to fight man to man. Otherwise sitting here typing words of support is just like being an armchair football critic who's never played the game.

 

[gvox]

BTW Speedracer, I don't think you should try to 'trap' me into a semantical corner, it is you that seems to take things out of context.

I did not say that the estimate in and of itself will turn out to be factually correct. I said that it was a fact that it has been estimated that nearly a million people will die.

In fact, it is also a fact that the Bush admin has stated that they have evidence of WMD. Whether them having evidence turns out to be a fact remains to be seen, and *STILL* unproven, which brings us full circle to the real point of this thread and of why the US claims invading Iraq is necessary.

It helps to get the facts straight.

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

There is a huge difference between Saddam's military actions and USA military actions over the past century. The USA's military actions have been in self defense and are clearly justified. Saddam's actions are pure aggression and not in self defense.

Saddam has murdered far more than 2,000 people. In the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988, over 1 million Iranian soldiers and civilians were killed. Tens of thousands of Kurds were killed as well for their support for Iran. Over 200,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the Iran/Iraq War. Another 200,000 Iraqi civilians killed in executions and other events related to the Iran/Iraq war.
In the 1991 Gulf War somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed in addition to 5,000 Iraqi citizens. 10,000 to 20,000 Kuwaiti citizens killed or who continue to be missing. Over 200,000 Iraqi civilians executed, killed in uprisings, or died from Saddam's manipulation of the distribution of humanitarian supplies. In addition, 240 Gulf War Coalition services members.

So at a minimum, Saddam through his violations of international law, has murdered 1,725,240 people and is attempting to get weapons that can murder 10 times that number.

If you don't care about Saddam's violations of UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules, then I don't see what you would be concerned about less serious and disputible US infractions not passed under chapter VII rules.

"Let's see the US cross the desert and fight Iraq man to man. Now that would be a good show"

I guess you have never heard of the battle of Madinah Ridge, the battle at 73 Easting, or Kuwait international Airport. Just some of the battles that took place in the ground phase of the 1991 Gulf War.

It is rather cowardly for Saddam Hussien to place Soviet made T-72 tanks inside or next to a school, just one example of course of Saddam's attempts to protect his military but if that fails cause civilian losses and blame it on the UN coalition. Why do you think Saddam stays in Iraqi residential neighborhoods during airstrikes?

"I repeat my challenge: anybody who thinks the US should be in Iraq in this world can go sign up, pick up a gun and march across that desert to fight man to man. Otherwise sitting here typing words of support is just like being an armchair football critic who's never played the game"

Its a bit naive for you to make personal assumptions about other people you do not know.

But lets follow your logic. Over 150 police officers are killed every year in the line of duty. A similar number of firemen lose their lives every year in the line of duty. Following your logic, God forbid anyone here, including yourself, ever at anytime calls on the police department or fire department for anything. Got a problem or a concern, don't ever call 911.

 

[STING2]

I'll tell you what is a fact. It is a fact that Iraq has failed to prove that they do not have Weapons of Mass Destruction which they are required to do under a number of resolutions and a ceacefire agreement and if they do not, will face military action to enforce the resolutions and ceacefire agreement they signed.

 

[gvox]

Here's how your 'facts' look to someone outside the US who isn't brainwashed by the party line.

There is a huge difference between Saddam's military actions and USA military actions over the past century. The USA's military actions have been in self defense and are clearly justified.

The US attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki after Japan had surrendered. That was not self-defense. The US invaded Vietnam, and I don't recall Vietnam attacking the US first. That was not self-defense. The US got involved in South America, and that was not self-defense. I'll stop at three examples. You can try and pacify your concience by manipulating perspective to believe that these acts were self-defense, but by and large the rest of the planet sees these types of acts as aggression.

Saddam's actions are pure aggression and not in self defense.

Which acts are those? There is no use quoting statistics and acts committed pre-1991, isn't that what the first Gulf war was 'for'?

Saddam has murdered far more than 2,000 people.

Im not sure what the 2000 number references, but whatever.

In the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988, over 1 million Iranian soldiers and civilians were killed.

That 1,000,000 number has been hotly disputed, and Iran certainly will never admit that they lost so many. Iran also sent old women and children to the battlefield to fight. Hardly respectable and hardly Saddam Hussein's fault.

Tens of thousands of Kurds were killed as well for their support for Iran. Over 200,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the Iran/Iraq War. Another 200,000 Iraqi civilians killed in executions and other events related to the Iran/Iraq war.

Gee, I must be horribly misinformed. I thought that Iraq had at least some form of muted support from the US during that time. I'm pretty sure that the majority of the Iraqi soldiers and civilians killed were killed by Iranian soldiers, were they not? Supporting Iran is hardly a 'worthy' cause and painting those who did as innocent victims is a little warped. That country was and in may ways still is even worse than Iraq. The US has been accused of being an active participant in that war in many different ways and at times for both sides, and bears heavy responsibility for many of the casualties.

In the 1991 Gulf War somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed in addition to 5,000 Iraqi citizens. 10,000 to 20,000 Kuwaiti citizens killed or who continue to be missing.

Are you expecting us to swallow that the Iraqi soldiers and civilians who died in the Gulf War died because of Saddam?? The last time I checked, it was US bombs and missiles that rained down on military installations, towns, homes, schools and day care centers. The soldiers that died died trying to defend their country against a foreign aggressor (read: self defense as in your earlier argument??)

In addition, 240 Gulf War Coalition services members.

If I'm not mistaken these poor souls died invading a foreign country.

So at a minimum, Saddam through his violations of international law, has murdered 1,725,240 people

This entire post is just the grossest misrepresentation of data I've seen in a long time. You have included in your tally every single man woman or child that has died in the country of Iraq from foreign invasion and from a 'humanitarian' system that got cut off. I'm going to follow your 'logic' here, but in reality both what Im about to say and your inane comments about public servicemen at the end of your post are extreme logical fallacies that would not stand in a Grade 6 debating class: to follow you then, a leader is responsible for all deaths in his country as a result of the mismanagement of that country? In that case then, various White House administrations over the years are responsible for MILLIONS of deaths then for oh, not stopping the manufacture and sales of firearms, the manufacture and sales of cigarrettes, for not implementing far greater controls on automakers, for not clamping down on drunk drivers more severely, for not revamping the justice system etc etc etc. I'll let you know when I'm done counting the numbers...

and is attempting to get weapons that can murder 10 times that number.

So, now it is 'attempting'? I thought he had them? I thought there was an immediate danger to Americans?

If you don't care about Saddam's violations of UN Security Council Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules, then I don't see what you would be concerned about less serious and disputible US infractions not passed under chapter VII rules.

You've completely missed the point obviously. The UN hasn't had the balls to stand up to the US and force it to abandon ITS WMD programs in light of ITS capabilities and ITS atrocious record of killing with them. That there are likely no rules under Chapter VII that address the US is precisely the problem.

I guess you have never heard of the battle of Madinah Ridge, the battle at 73 Easting, or Kuwait international Airport. Just some of the battles that took place in the ground phase of the 1991 Gulf War.

That would be after the country was pretty much decimated from the bombings that came before the actual invasion??

It is rather cowardly for Saddam Hussien to place Soviet made T-72 tanks inside or next to a school, just one example of course of Saddam's attempts to protect his military

Did it ever occur to you that a country that is being attacked would probably move tanks or other military means into areas to try and actually protect them? After all, it was the US that was bombing these schools, if you will recall. Isn't that what we do when we're attacked? Try and protect our civilians?

but if that fails cause civilian losses and blame it on the UN coalition.

But there is no UN coalition this time around, is there? (yet, granted)

Why do you think Saddam stays in Iraqi residential neighborhoods during airstrikes?

Does George Bush stay in the White House if the US comes under attack?

Its a bit naive for you to make personal assumptions about other people you do not know.

Fine, state your rank and serial number soldier and get on with it. Youre going, youre going. But know that if you do, you are going based on as yet unproven allegations and if the facts prove the Bush admin wrong, you will have innocent blood on your hands, and no amount of convincing yourself that it's Saddam's fault will prove otherwise.

But lets follow your logic. Over 150 police officers are killed every year....

No, as I mentioned earlier I will not be drawn into that extremely illogical fallacy. You aren't even close to making a valid correlation.

 

[Dreadsox]

I repeat my challenge: anybody who thinks the US should be in Iraq in this world can go sign up, pick up a gun and march across that desert to fight man to man. Otherwise sitting here typing words of support is just like being an armchair football critic who's never played the game.

Some of us were in the military the 1st time.....