Cindy Sheehan

[Krispy Joe]

Surely you've all heard about her by now. What is your take on the woman who is camped outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford with all of her supporters and whatnot? Personally, I think she has an agenda. Her son signed up for a second tour of duty, and now she's thinking it's George Bush's fault that he died.


I don't have a link, just Google it.

[Polaris_Echoes]

2) We would like for him to explain this "noble cause" to us and ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble.

3) If George is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal.

No one forced her son to sign up.


I do have sympathy for the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, but I think she's just turned this into a way so she can benefit for herself. She's making money on this. But, George fucked up with some of his statements. Also they can't just pull the troops out. That wouldn't solve anything.

[[Political] Slayer]

A year ago, she was praising Bush, and he personally offered his condolances to her. She is not only betraying the death of her son, but she is capitalizing on it. I think she needs to go die a horrible death for what she is doing in the name of her son, I can't believe a parent would do that to their son.

[-V-]

She's making money on this. DO expand on this please, since as I understand she is just camping out by his ranch and protesting.

That and loosing someone you love can have fairly big impact on your outview on all things, even if it is not 100% immediate. Just food for thought.

-e- Also hasn't the white-house tried to find out her hidden agenda so that they can ignore her as just another hippy protester, yet have not be able to do so?

[Krispy Joe]

He agenda is pretty obvious. She is a huge rallying point for anti-war protestors. Last night about 1,000 people gathered on a bridge in Minneapolis to protest the war and give "solidarity" to Sheehan. You can't buy that kind of press.

[-V-]

He agenda is pretty obvious. She is a huge rallying point for anti-war protestors. Last night about 1,000 people gathered on a bridge in Minneapolis to protest the war and give "solidarity" to Sheehan. You can't buy that kind of press.
Uhmm....how is that really any diffirent from any other protest? As I am aware most protestors seek publicity and attention, thats why protests are held in the open and not in people's basements safe from prying eyes...

[FaKToR]

She has an "agenda" because she has an opinion about the war?

[M123]

The whole Iraq thing is not really a succes and someone should take responsibility for the mistakes made.

[Polaris_Echoes]

DO expand on this please, since as I understand she is just camping out by his ranch and protesting.


She's probably going to get tons of offers for books, movies, documentaries and so on, assuming she already hasn't.

[Krispy Joe]

How is it not a success?


Fak: Okay, I guess she really has no "Agenda", but I think she is somewhat exploiting the death of her son for some form of political gain. Considering he was dedicated to the Armed Services (He re-upped), he probably would not want his mom to feel this way.

[Kak]

I am on the opposite side of the politcal spectrum as Bush, but I still think that if the troops were to leave right now, it would undermine the cause that her son died for.

I think Bush should talk to her again. I read an article on MSN about him talking with those who lost loved ones, and I gained a lot of respect for him if what I read is true. He seems to show a lot of emotions in the private conversations, and act almost like a family member. I think that if he talked to her again she wouldn't be as angry anymore.

And I suspect that is what's going to happen during this vacation, he's going to talk to her. And if not, I think that's the wrong move.

[Krispy Joe]

I concur, I think what The President should do is have a chat. Just him, Cindy, and a advisor of some sort in case Bush gets stuck on a question (It happens sometimes.. AM I RITE?>!). No cameras, and Sheehan isn't allowed to discuss the interview at all. It would help him out a lot in this case, and then he can fly back to Washington and begin "fixing" the Iraq issue.

[Kak]

If I recall correctly, his vacation ends at the end of the month, so he still has a little while to make his decision. The sooner the better though, all this is taking away air time from the Gaza pullout in Israel :(

[FaKToR]

Okay, I guess she really has no "Agenda", but I think she is somewhat exploiting the death of her son for some form of political gain. Considering he was dedicated to the Armed Services (He re-upped), he probably would not want his mom to feel this way.
Invoking her son against her? You don't even know them. Sure she could be wrong, but I'd be more inclined to value her opinion of her son then yours.

How is it not a success?
I don't know if it's a failure, but it's definitely not a success atm.

[Kak]

Faktor, how do you feel about what I said?

[FaKToR]

Which part? I can't say anything about pulling out right now cause I'm not up on that issue. I do know that I don't care about this woman's little stand or whether she speaks to the president because it's not all that important. The issue she's pushing isn't one that needs to be covered this much so I'm annoyed by the waste of air time on it.

I have no idea about how Bush feels regarding those who've died. I don't know if it's really relevant either. It's expected that people feel for the families and the fallen, and it would only really be shocking if he was totally indifferent.

[Kak]

Which part? I can't say anything about pulling out right now cause I'm not up on that issue. I do know that I don't care about this woman's little stand or whether she speaks to the president because it's not all that important. The issue she's pushing isn't one that needs to be covered this much so I'm annoyed by the waste of air time on it.

I have no idea about how Bush feels regarding those who've died. I don't know if it's really relevant either. It's expected that people feel for the families and the fallen, and it would only really be shocking if he was totally indifferent.
Ah okay, I was just wondering if you felt he should talk to her or not.

[kreket]

No one forced her son to sign up.


I do subscribe to the view of individualism, but answer these for me:

What was his options?

What was his background?

Was he aware of his options?

As a mate of mine once said "I hope I can get a drivers license for a truck in the army so I get some basis for a job." When he got it, he pretty much aimed at it as his career. Now I realise that's both proving and counterproving my point since this person was signing up a second time. You don't always get to choose who is selected for the free stuff in the army.

[Bone_Vulture]

A well-fit Flash by Mark Fiore: "Victory is..." (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19494)

[marty]

She's angry that her son is dead. Can you really blame her, disagree with her or not? A dead kid. Come one. It's an emotional issue, so I hope no one tries to rationalize this...

[M123]

How is it not a success?


1.No wmd existed, means less reason to wage war in first place.
2.No plan for occupation or succes, means more deaths and less success.
3.Not having a plan or effort to secure iraqi wmd after end of war, points to wmd's never being the issue in the first place.
4.The situation in Iraq concerning oil, water and electricity is still below pre-war levels.
5.Lots of foreign fighters in Iraq getting experience means trouble later when they start returning home and continu the fight.
6.A war that was supposed to pay for itself is has already costed 250 billion dollars.
7.Finding a chemical weapon lab in Iraq set up by insurgents after the war, makes the war appear counterproductive.
8.Bagdad's mayor getting kick out of office by an armed militia seems a bad sign.
9.Couple of hundred people dieing a month two years after the end of the war is not a succes, especially if the death rate keep climbing and climbing.

[Polaris_Echoes]

In the beginning I supported this war, but the more it goes on, and the more I'm learning about it, the less supportive I am becoming.

[GoatChomper]

.....Mark Fiore.....
For somebody to whom cartoons represent the depth of their political "thought", you'd at least think he could get the lip synchronization right.

[Bone_Vulture]

For somebody to whom cartoons represent the depth of their political "thought", you'd at least think he could get the lip synchronization right.

OOOOOOOOH BURN :rolleyes:

Here's an entertaining comic for you as well. Let's see if I can steal the bandwidth...

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW07-06-05.jpg

Tom Tomorrow's comic archive (http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=43)

[[Political] Slayer]

Yep, because Republicans don't join the military, and send nothing but poor people over there. That is why 75% of the military voted for Bush :rolleyes:

[knute]

I just don't like her because she dresses all up in flowers and shit and tries to look like a hippy. And then she goes out and drives a ginormous Lincoln Navigator.

[-V-]

Hmm last I heard US army only gave Bush 60-65% of the votes. not the overwhelming 75%.

[nyarlathotep]

weeee

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm

Heard the ol man is getting rid of her, and the rest of the family aint too happy...wonder why?

[Grunt]

She is the only one in her farmily that is using her dead son as a political tool; the rest of them have pretty much diowned her.

Also, yes, she did lose her son, but what about everyone else who lost their son or daughter in Iraq? Shouldn't they get their week(s) of fame too?

[GoatChomper]

1.No wmd existed, means less reason to wage war in first place.
And the means of production are forever out of Baathist hands.
2.No plan for occupation or succes, means more deaths and less success.
Check that.....military operations LIVE on plans.
3.Not having a plan or effort to secure iraqi wmd after end of war, points to wmd's never being the issue in the first place.
Moot.....the sheer number of weapon-storage sites exceeded the capability to secure them all even with full NATO participation and the force-level envisioned by Shinseki.
4.The situation in Iraq concerning oil, water and electricity is still below pre-war levels.
As SWAT pointed out some time ago, utilities are in the hands of locals wont to shut off services to rivals.
5.Lots of foreign fighters in Iraq getting experience means trouble later when they start returning home and continu the fight.
If they survive.
6.A war that was supposed to pay for itself is has already costed 250 billion dollars.
I don't recall anybody making the claim that it would pay for itself.....the only way to do that would be literally to sell infrastructure and assets.
7.Finding a chemical weapon lab in Iraq set up by insurgents after the war, makes the war appear counterproductive.
Moot.....you simply can't repeal knowledge of chemistry.
8.Bagdad's mayor getting kick out of office by an armed militia seems a bad sign.
We'll see how that one plays out.
9.Couple of hundred people dieing a month two years after the end of the war is not a succes, especially if the death rate keep climbing and climbing.[/QUOTE]
Who said it was over?

[M123]

And the means of production are forever out of Baathist hands.

I doubt there would have been a lot of support for the war if the main justification was to stop the potential start of production of wmd's some time in the future.


Check that.....military operations LIVE on plans.

Could you point me to the pre-war plan for how to handle the following occupation, because I've read from several sources that there was none.


Moot.....the sheer number of weapon-storage sites exceeded the capability to secure them all even with full NATO participation and the force-level envisioned by Shinseki.

How about just securing the three major ones within a year?


As SWAT pointed out some time ago, utilities are in the hands of locals wont to shut off services to rivals.

Never heard of that.


I don't recall anybody making the claim that it would pay for itself.....the only way to do that would be literally to sell infrastructure and assets.

Well, not pay for itself, but at least not cost so much. What is the price tag now 300 billion?
"
MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t say that, Tim. There are estimates out there. It’s important, though, to recognize that we’ve got a different set of circumstances than we’ve had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you’ve got a nation without significant resources. In Iraq you’ve got a nation that’s got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future. And that flow of resources, obviously, belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be one of our major objectives.
"


Moot.....you simply can't repeal knowledge of chemistry.

Terrorists building a chemical weapons lab in a country invaded to stop terrorists from aquiring chemical weapons is a moot point. Willfull ignorance.


Who said it was over?

The war was over two years ago, then came the occupation.

It wouldn't be so bad if the situation didn't appear to continually get worse.

I hope my prewar predictions of the US being at least ten years in Iraq, the US public losing stomach after two years and Iraq ending up as a failed state made up of three independent parts don't come true.

[Skyler]

Major combat against the Iraqi military ended two years ago, not the whole war.

[FaKToR]

Is it a war or a policing action?

Edit: I would like to say that I also particularly dislike this approach (that is what Sheehan is doing) because it's a red herring. The fact that she lost her son in Iraq gives no more truth to her arguments, it simply makes it more personal. Likewise I would disagree with anyone who's lost relatives in Iraq and would therefore conclude that their opinions somehow carry more weight on what is appropriate regarding the situation.

[GoatChomper]

I doubt there would have been a lot of support for the war if the main justification was to stop the potential start of production of wmd's some time in the future.
It was tried and failed.....remember the missiles they weren't supposed to have that hit Bahrain?
How about just securing the three major ones within a year?
How about it? Do you have evidence they weren't?
Well, not pay for itself, but at least not cost so much. What is the price tag now 300 billion?
Nothing in the following quote indicates that Iraqi proceeds were earmarked for defraying coalition war costs.
Terrorists building a chemical weapons lab in a country invaded to stop terrorists from aquiring chemical weapons is a moot point. Willfull ignorance.
Hardly.....are you willing to call call the presence of meth labs in our own country despite prohibitions on the same a result of willfull ignorance?
It wouldn't be so bad if the situation didn't appear to continually get worse.
Who says it is?

[marty]

It wouldn't be so bad if the situation didn't appear to continually get worse.
The operative word is "appear". It's media sensationalism. It's not really their fault, they have to attract viewers somehow to survive, and people tend to want to hear about horrible things instead of anything else.

Honestly, Iraq looks like an extremely dangerous place, but it probably seems worse because we're focusing so much attention to it (we're occupying it, so that's why). There are so much more dangerous areas in the world :/.

I'd rather walk in the streets of Tikrit while waving an American flag in one hand, wearing a Yarmulke on my head, and burning an Iraqi flag in the other hand than sit in an armored car in a few parts of Africa or South East Asia.

(Someone alert the hyperbole police)

[-V-]

You know, the whole Iraq thing is starting to look more and more like another Vietnam & Afganistan. A few days ago another General serving in Iraq said that troop levels would still need to be maintained at 100,000 for the next 4 years. They say we're winning, that there is a lul in car-bombs or that there have been fewer drive-by's, that we've killed X-ten's of thousands of insurgents, but if you look at the number of US soldiers killed it is still at a steady base-line. We're nearing the 2,000 mark is it? With ~15,000 wounded?

Wholeistically I would say whole Iraq situation is at an equilibrium right now. Its getting neither better nor worse. However, in the future I could see it begining to slide into sectarian violence. With Iran sending weapons to Iraq, and a never-ending stream of Jihadists from Saudi-Arabia comming to fight the infidels, and those of differing oppinions, its not going to improve much in the future. Not to mention that for the Army it is getting harder and harder to maintain its troop levels since not many people want to sign up to get shot at, blown up, or killed.

[M123]

How about it? Do you have evidence they weren't?

We went over this already a couple of times. Several large iraqi weapons sites were left unsecured. One was a nuclear site, another was an explosives site(there was a scandal about that). A whole bunch of handheld anti-aircraft missiles went missing too.


Hardly.....are you willing to call call the presence of meth labs in our own country despite prohibitions on the same a result of willfull ignorance?

I was talking about the way you just dismis arguments as moot, while they are relevant. One of the resons Iraq was invaded was to stop terrorists, but currently Iraq seems to be becoming a haven for terrorists.


Who says it is?

I. The number of people killed a month keeps rising and from other stories it appears that the US is losing control of Iraq and islamic extremists are gaining control.

[Daywalker]

Is it a war or a policing action?

Edit: I would like to say that I also particularly dislike this approach (that is what Sheehan is doing) because it's a red herring. The fact that she lost her son in Iraq gives no more truth to her arguments, it simply makes it more personal. Likewise I would disagree with anyone who's lost relatives in Iraq and would therefore conclude that their opinions somehow carry more weight on what is appropriate regarding the situation.


Yea, her son's death doesn't make her right. Shes just spouting off what she hears and is like, "well I'm sad, the war and Bush sucks, I'll just soak up what these other people say and regergitate it."

[GoatChomper]

You know, the whole Iraq thing is starting to look more and more like another Vietnam & Afganistan.....

.....if you look at the number of US soldiers killed it is still at a steady base-line. We're nearing the 2,000 mark is it? With ~15,000 wounded?
Check out the casualty rates and totals from the Vietnam War, then ponder the incompatibility of these two statements.
However, in the future I could see it begining to slide into sectarian violence.
I don't know why people keep speaking as if sectarian fighting were a possibility for the future.....it's been going on for two years already.
We went over this already a couple of times.
Alright, do you have evidence of willful negligence in this claim?
I was talking about the way you just dismis arguments as moot, while they are relevant.
Matter of opinion.
One of the resons Iraq was invaded was to stop terrorists, but currently Iraq seems to be becoming a haven for terrorists.
In which they are presented with the opportunity to have their individual capabilities ended permanently.

[M123]

Alright, do you have evidence of willful negligence in this claim?


Willful neglience or remarkable incompetence and I do have proof. Are the old forums still around somewhere because I don't want to go hunt down the facts again. I will eventually.

You do remember previous discussions on this subject?


In which they are presented with the opportunity to have their individual capabilities ended permanently.


Or the opportunity to set up a chemical weapons lab.

[-V-]

Check out the casualty rates and totals from the Vietnam War, then ponder the incompatibility of these two statements.

Vietnam lasted 10 years is it? We've been in Iraq for what 2?

I don't know why people keep speaking as if sectarian fighting were a possibility for the future.....it's been going on for two years already.

Worse then it is now. If Saudi-Arabia and Iran keep pumping cash and suplies into Iraq, what's going on right now might seem like a small bar-room brawl compared to the mess that might errup there.

[GoatChomper]

Or the opportunity to set up a chemical weapons lab.
As well as the opportunity to get shot doing so. Surely you know Iraq isn't the only place on the planet one could construct such a facility.
Vietnam lasted 10 years is it? We've been in Iraq for what 2?
I'm confident that I don't have to explain the term "rates" here.

[Bone_Vulture]

I'm confident that I don't have to explain the term "rates" here.

Here's an interesting site listing the casualties. (http://thewall-usa.com/stats/) Be sure to check out the last chart at the bottom of the page, which displays yearly casualties.

[GoatChomper]

Then maybe I do have to explain the term here, because at least one person seems/chooses not to grasp it.

Try comparing two years' worth of Iraq War casualties to nine years' worth of the same in Southeast Asia. It's math so simple even a victim of decades' worth of leftwing control of public schooling should be able to do it, unless they're on a career track in public school administration.

[Bone_Vulture]

Goat, if that's you're typical convoluted way of pointing out that it took nine years from the apparent start of the Vietnam war to pile up the same casualty figures that we have now in Iraq, then you are right.

[GoatChomper]

Damn, did you manage to sleep through all math classes?

The 58,178 Vietnam casualties figure is inflated as it includes years in which there were no major combat units in Vietnam and years in which there were exactly zero troops....the actual figure for the nine years in which there were assigned units (1965-1973) in-country is 56,611 but for simplicity's sake we'll call it 58,000.

To date, there have been 1,874 confirmed casualties in two-and-a-half years of action in Iraq. As we're already using one inflated figure for simplicity's sake, we'll call this 2,000.

Now, time for you to learn a little simple multiplication: 2,000 X 4 = 8,000. If you want to adjust that for the differing peak-troop levels then call it 600,000 for Vietnam (actually 536,100 US troops in 1968) versus ~150,000 for Iraq, then 8,000 X 4 = 32,000.

Oh, you just want to compare the first two years in Iraq versus the first two years in Vietnam? Then the comparison becomes more absurd.....less than 2,000 versus over 8,000.

It's about at this point in your calculations that you should develop some honesty and admit that casualty levels for the Iraq War come nowhere near those of Vietnam.
-----------------
Actually, I think I do know why some people are predicting "future" sectarian war when it's been under way for two years now.....the jeremiahs can pick any convenient time to point at it and shrill "See? We told you so!"

[Bone_Vulture]

It's about at this point in your calculations that you should develop some honesty and admit that casualty levels for the Iraq War come nowhere near those of Vietnam.

Ohmegosh you just posted a coherent argument! The shock 'n awe devastate me! :eek:

Logically thinking, the weighed casualty ratio should never reflect Vietnam anyway, as America's army today is supposed to be a well-trained volunteer force, instead of one built from draftees and second-rate volunteers*.

*Not yet, at least.

[Shinobi]

fair enough bone vulture,,

army seems to be the only way low income people can afford college (I've recently been considering the army myself, not because of free college but because of discipline I may need in my life, college is just icing on the cake)

in areas of very low income etc.. it seems like america is recrutnig it's lowest common denominator or the poorest of the population, I mean it's the only way to afford college,, forgive me if I sound too cynical , it's just the stance I hold

as for cindy, I think she has the right to protest, as for those who think that she;s profitting off this.. I think that that's rediculously cynical,, she has her cause as well as the mothers who believe that thier sons died for a noble cause,,,

[M123]

On the wmd sites:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A36985-2003May9&notFound=true

It is still not clear what has been lost in the sacking of Iraq's nuclear establishment. But it is well documented that looters roamed unrestrained among stores of chemical elements and scientific files that would speed development, in the wrong hands, of a nuclear or radiological bomb. Many of the files, and some of the containers that held radioactive sources, are missing.

Previous reports have described damage at two of the facilities, the Tuwaitha Yellowcake Storage Facility and the adjacent Baghdad Nuclear Research Center. Now, the identity of three more damaged sites has been learned: the Ash Shaykhili Nuclear Facility, the Baghdad New Nuclear Design Center and the Tahadi Nuclear Establishment. All of them have attracted close scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy Agency and from U.S. analysts who suspected that Iraq, despite IAEA inspections, was working to develop a bomb.

The identities of two other sites, also said to have been looted, could not be learned.

Army Lt. Col. Charles Allison, who led the U.S. survey team at Ash Shaykhili, said in an interview that its "warehouses were completely destroyed" by ransacking and fire. A Special Forces soldier, part of another team that reached Ash Shaykhili before Allison, said "they were supposed to store all their enrichment processing machinery there, but it was all gone or badly burned."

....

According to witnesses, Allison's survey team reached both of these sites on April 10, the same day that ElBaradei cited them as the two most important for U.S. forces to protect. But because of continuing debate within the Bush administration over whether to enter without IAEA inspectors present, Allison received a hasty order to withdraw. When Allison was told to evacuate all U.S. personnel, including troops providing security at the perimeter, he grew agitated, witnesses said.

"Whoever gave that order better check his retirement plan, because if we leave this place open somebody is going to lose their job," he told an officer at the ground forces operations center of Central Command, according to two witnesses. Allison confirmed the gist of the conversation.

Eventually Central Command relented and ordered a company of the 3rd Infantry Division to guard both Tuwaitha-area sites. But the twin complexes, about a square mile each and half a mile apart, were far too big for the force left in place. Soldiers posted there permitted Iraqi civilians who said they were employees to enter freely. Looting at both places continued last Saturday, when a Washington Post reporter spent four hours at the site.

Daoud Awad, who ran the electrical design department at Tuwaitha, said in a brief interview that he "saw with my own eyes people carrying the containers we used to put radioactive materials in." The containers slightly resemble jugs commonly used for milk, he said, "and they didn't know what was inside."

"I saw some papers on an experiment, and the people threw the papers on the floor and took the table," he said. "If they knew how valuable the papers were, they would have kept the papers, not the table."

"How could they leave a place like this without protection?" he asked. "It's not an ordinary place. It's too dangerous."


http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion?mode=PF


raqi officials reported that thieves looted 377 tons of powerful explosives from an unguarded site after the US-led invasion last year, the top UN nuclear official said yesterday. And a former weapons inspector said he had counted about 100 other unguarded weapons sites that may have been stripped of munitions for use in the wave of attacks against US soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

The explosives that were looted from the Al Qaqaa nuclear facility, apparently in April and May of 2003, had been sealed and monitored by international nuclear inspectors before the invasion. The explosives were monitored because they can be used to detonate a nuclear bomb, although Iraq was allowed to keep them because they also have civilian and conventional military uses.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, disclosed the security lapse to the UN Security Council yesterday after receiving a letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology earlier this month that informed him of the loss and blamed it on ''theft and looting of governmental installations due to lack of security."

News that such a large amount of specialized explosives had disappeared from the abandoned facility spread alarm in Washington among longtime observers of Iraq's weapons programs.

''This is not just any old warehouse in Iraq that happened to have explosives in it; this was a leading location for developing nuclear weapons before the first Gulf War," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a nonprofit organization that has followed Iraq's attempts to procure weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade. ''The fact that it had been left unsecured is very, very discouraging. It would be like invading the US in to order to get rid of [weapons of mass destruction] and not securing Los Alamos or [Lawrence] Livermore [National Laboratory]."
...
''The RDX, HMX, is a superb explosive for terrorists," Kay said. ''The danger is that it's gone somewhere else in the Middle East."

However, Kay's team had a mandate only to search for weapons of mass destruction, not to secure conventional arms, so he could do little beyond referring the caches to the US-led coalition.

''The military did not view guarding these sites as their responsibility," Kay said, recalling that he witnessed US troops guarding the gates of the Tuwaitha nuclear facility while Iraq civilians carried away radioactive pipes and metal drums through other exits.

''There just were not enough troops to guard the number of sites. It was just crazy."

At the time, there was no major insurgency and US military officials felt the war had been won, Kay said, so the Department of Defense did not fear that the weapons that disappeared in widespread looting would be used against US soldiers.

Later, as the insurgency heated, at least three major bombing sites in Iraq tested positive for HMX or RDX, Kay recalled.

Kay said that late into fall 2003, more than 100 large ammunition storage points had been left unsecured; everything from conventional bombs to artillery shells and rockets were unguarded.

By the time Kay's team visited Qaqaa in the late summer of 2003, the buildings had been largely destroyed by the war and looting, and it was too dangerous to spend much time at the sites. He said there was no sign of the neatly packaged explosives in locked bunkers that Kay had seen as a weapons inspector in 1991, when he researched how Iraq bought the explosives, mostly from China and Eastern Europe.

Kay said he stressed the danger of leaving the weapons sites unguarded in his testimony to Congress. Since late fall of last year, the military has put out contracts seeking companies that will secure and destroy the weapons, Kay said, but the process has gone slowly.

The location of the explosives at Qaqaa had been so well known to inspectors that they appeared routinely in reports written by ElBaradei to the Security Council.

''Qaqaa was a well-known site even before the first Gulf War as a place where Iraqis were doing nuclear research," said Milhollin, who said he learned that in 1989 the Department of Defense had brought three Iraqis from the site to Oregon to train them in HMX detonations. ''It was certainly a leading candidate to be inspected after the first Gulf War and to be secured after the second."


http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/photos/


On May 9, 2003, a Human Rights Watch researcher encountered a massive stockpile of warheads, anti-tank mines, anti-personnel mines, and other weaponry at the unsecured Second Military College, located on the main road between Baghdad and Baquba. Among the weaponry were hundreds of high-explosive surface-to-surface warheads for the ASTROS multiple rocket launcher system, packing 26 kilograms of high explosives each. The weapon stocks were in the process of being looted.

Concerned about the safety of the displaced persons at the military college, the researcher immediately went to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad and reported the weapons stockpile, showing U.S. military officials photographs of the weaponry, giving the exact GPS coordinates of the site, and showing the location of the site on a military map. The researcher repeatedly returned to the "Green Zone" over the next days to report continuing looting at the site, but U.S. coalition forces did not move to secure the site.

The road between Baghdad and Baquba is now one of the main locations for attacks using “improvised explosive devices” (IEDs) against passing coalition troops and Iraqi security forces. Typically, suicide bombers and IEDs involve between 25 to 200 kilograms of high explosives.

U.S. troops were not the only ones who failed to secure weapons dumps. Also in May 2003, a Human Rights Watch research team located 20 trucking containers packed with anti-aircraft shells, mortar rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and Katyusha rockets near the old airport in Basra. The team approached the British troop contingent stationed nearby and asked them to secure the site, as civilians were looting the site and being injured. Even though the site was less than one kilometer away from the headquarters of the British First Fusilliers Battle Group, the British forces failed to secure the site.


Also this link is cute, it shows plans for Iraqs nuclear program as originally posted on the cia website: http://p209.ezboard.com/fthefulltruthforum60735frm40.showMessage?topicID=1 96.topic

Also check out question 3 beneath them for extra laughs.

[GoatChomper]

Ohmegosh you just posted a coherent argument! The shock 'n awe devastate me! :eek:
As I always do, not being one who has to rely on emoticons.
Logically thinking, the weighed casualty ratio should never reflect Vietnam anyway, as America's army today is supposed to be a well-trained volunteer force, instead of one built from draftees and second-rate volunteers.
Your attempted smear is moot..... DoD's own records show that the force in Vietnam was roughly 2/3 volunteer, as opposed to the "Greatest Generation's" army being 3/4 draftee.
in areas of very low income etc.. it seems like america is recrutnig it's lowest common denominator or the poorest of the population, I mean it's the only way to afford college.....
It's not.

And the "rich" ones tend to be the ones who become officers (whom any half-competent opponent knows to target) go into the more prone-to-capture fields like Aviation, as only officers are pilots, further inflating their death rates. The Jane Fonda propaganda about the poor and minorities suffering a disproportionate level of manning and casualties is pure bullshit.

[Bone_Vulture]

As I always do, not being one who has to rely on emoticons.

Consider the emoticons complementary.

Your attempted smear is moot..... DoD's own records show that the force in Vietnam was roughly 2/3 volunteer, as opposed to the "Greatest Generation's" army being 3/4 draftee.

Can you back up that claim with sources? Oddly enough, a brief search with Google didn't yield a single site about historical recruitment statistics.

[GoatChomper]

It was all too easy.....

http://www.rjsmith.com/war_myth.html
http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm

[SWATJester_os]

Bone, play nice or don't play at all. This is your warning.

[Bone_Vulture]

Bone, play nice or don't play at all. This is your warning.

You make it sound like I was posting death threats aimed at Goat. :rolleyes:

[phatace51]

-e- Also hasn't the white-house tried to find out her hidden agenda so that they can ignore her as just another hippy protester, yet have not be able to do so?

The white house doesn't report the news. Thank the wonderful media for all of this spectacle.

[SWATJester_os]

I've had to delete two of your posts already BV. If I get to three, I won't be happy.

[M123]

Ignoring the whole the war is justified debate, can we all agree that a lack of planning and clear goals made the situation in Iraq a lot worse than it could have been?

Also there isn't going to be a full scale civil war in Iraq as long as US troops are there and US troops are going to be in Iraq, while there is oil in the middle east.

[GoatChomper]

.....can we all agree that a lack of planning and clear goals made the situation in Iraq a lot worse than it could have been?
No, because that's not the case at all. Anybody who thinks there was "no planning or clear goals" when the announced intention prior to moving an entire army into the region and commencing hostilities was that of establishing a new regime is sticking their fingers in their ears. Too many of you seem to think that if there's a plan, then it will automatically succeed so setbacks or a lack of immediate success must indicate there was neither planning nor goals.

That ain't the way things work, people.....there is no vacuum.

[BlindSite]

Why is it that people dearly hold on to some such notion that the Coalition of the willing did not plan or set goals, dispite the fact that such meetings are documented and well known of. The Bulletin, the Age and even the Far Eastern Economic Review had articles on the Planning Stages of the war, to which Australia was a part of to an unprecedented extent.