Well to be honest with you.. this person went into the navy in the nuclear program.. servered his 6 yes he had to server in the program.. and was working for a research institute around here... after 9/11 he reinlisted in the ARMY this time.. so yes.. I would say he knows what he is talking about.

Thats weird... Since every scrap of evidence and information we seem to have recieved says that there have been were and are not any WMDs in Iraq - or anything even close to WMDs. the worst he seemed to have were some small missiles....

And back to the discussion.  Here's a little comment from the very conservative Tucker Carlson.

"No matter how you feel about Bush, watching him speak is difficult. It?s like watching a drunk man cross an icy street," - Tucker Carlson, last night on Real Time with Bill Maher.


Tuck = not a liberal

Finally, some honesty from the right.

I love when I hear you guys repeat the media and say there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  What a crock of shit.  What, do you guys really believe that EVERY intelligence agency on EARTH was wrong???  The better question to ask is "WHERE THE FUCK DID THEY SEND THEIR WMDs?".  As for me, and many of my friends I've talked to in various intelligence agencies, those WMDs are more than likely now in Syria.  Syria and Iran should be our next targets in the War on Terrorism.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.[/size]

Was that adressed to me? I wasn't talking about your views or anything, I was merely remarking upon the fact that Bondo served you up some smack down.

OK someone just posted somthing really funny on the forum. Would someone mind explaining this to me - i think the guy apparently served in the US military so im guessing he knows a little bit about armaments and a bit about  WMDs etc:


I wonder whether he has ever heard of People called "Weapons Inspecters" a group of scientists and military personel and other relevant groups who are considered to be the most informed, knowledgable and experiecned people in their area of expertese.
I wonder if he also is aware that what he has posted is total bullshit - Not every intelligence serivice was wrong - They didn't all say iraq had WMDs in the first place. The fact that the Joint British American Intelligence presented has allready been found to be totally flawed and incorrect might just be a tiny little issue that he conveniently "overlooked"

We joke over here that the American Government and some individuals are so stupid that their next move will be to Invade Syria or Iran... Its only funny because its stuch a stupid idea. I wonder whether they can fullfill the steriotype.

Better question.  Why does every intellegence agency in the world now think they were wrong?

Or maybe it's because they were wrong.

The Emperor has no clothes.

Ghost Sniper, the way I would do it, i.e. the right way, would be first to focus on cleaning up Bush's mess. Second, with a rebuilt intelligence community and larger special forces I would focus on precision attacks against terrorist cells around the world. However, attacking soverign nations (Syria or Iran or whatever) would not be the plan, it is wrong to do that without very strong international support or direct threat, but we can do the small opperations unilaterally. I would use diplomacy (bilateral talks, multilateral talks, the UN) to deal with problems with governments of soverign nations.

As a result of this policy, terrorists would be attacked without massive civilian deaths, thus they would be hurt without helping their cause, we would have more respect to make international deals and we would successfully have these countries under control and could slowly push them in the direction of democracy and freedom. The world would be safer and more peaceful and everyone would be happy Ok, so it wouldn't be that perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot more successful than Bush's plan.

P.S. My final, comprehensive commentary about the first debate is here.