New weapons in Iraq... Tic.. Toc.. Tic.. Toc....

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

i like them to! with red wine, and a-1 sauce. J/K

Merde! a-1 sauce! Non non non! A nice chocolate is much better.

Then you get to lick it off, slowly...

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,009]

>Then you get to lick it off, slowly...

What is with you lately, girl? First happy hour, now this . . .

[flyingferret 0]

Well I see your point. But I think this question has an answer.

As for GB's records I have no idea, have not really read about it. But I think quite a few administration in the last 50 years have done that. There might be a legitimate reason or not. I am not a big proponent of the theory that the public needs to know everything. There are records within the last 10 years that might still be sensitive. Or maybe he is doing it for dad. I don't know. I am much more likely to suspect the Iraqs of hiding weapons, it just seems to be a pattern.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But I think quite a few administration in the last 50 years have done that.

Well, Nixon doing it was what prompted the laws that said you can't anymore. First thing Bush did was put through an executive order in violation of those laws. Sure there probably are sensitive documents but they are not required to be disclosed, anything classified can remain that way. What Bush Jr. did was block anything that's been declassified from being released either, reaching all the way back to Iran/Contra...

[flyingferret 0]

I dont necessarily agree with it, but I hardly see how it is a 'no answer' question similiar to the Iraqis hiding drones.

Personally, I would not want to be harassed all the time benig asked about my dad in the Contra affair. Or maybe he just did it for his dad. Everyone here was so supportive of the mother who entered the US illegally to help here daughter. Does the same extend to someone helping a father live his last decade peacefully?

I am not intending to say I agree, because have no research on this subject. I am just thinking out loud. Either way, I dont think it applies anything to the Iraqi drones.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[flyingferret 0]

I also posted this as a new thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80955,00.html

Hilarious. I find this hysterically ironic.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[billvon 3,009]

O'Keefe: "I was escorted by Iraqi intelligence officers to the border, because I say what I believe and the Iraqi government wants submissive easy robots."

Imagine that, Hussein not letting O'Keefe make his own form of political statement. Next thing you know, their elections will turn out to be a sham.

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

>Don't you like the french Bill?

I like em just fine, but lately around here french jokes are funny whereas jokes about americans and christians are not. Just trying to follow the trend.

>Probably won't happen again at least not like that.

Yep, although I think the next sort of attack like that, if it's attempted, will be stopped by the Todd Beamers of the world and not the TSA agents at our airports. I think that's a stronger deterrent than our new security.

.

At least they won't have to deal with terrorists armed with model rockets!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[VectorBoy 0]

Force them to do it. Use all our intelligence resources, find the weapons, and demand they be destroyed by X date. If they don't do that, ______[send in troops with the inspectors]_________ to ensure their destruction.
______[ If they resist, then it's war time.

[rhino 0]

Boobies...

[billvon 3,009]

> You want to send in troops first, then declare war? Not smart.

Don't know if you noticed this or not, but we've been doing just that for ten years. We have been bombing them, sending in the CIA to sponsor anti-Saddam terrorists, and pursuing inspections all at the same time.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You want to send in troops first, then declare war? Not smart.
Man I'm glad you were never in my chain of command. Glen

We never declared war on N. Korea or N. Vietnam, or Iraq, or Nicaragua, or Serbia, or Panama, or anyone else since WWII.

[flyingferret 0]

Even Bill's hero agrees. (Boy I never thought I would quote him.)

Quote

Here is President Clinton on Iraq in 1998: "What if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? . . . Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

> You want to send in troops first, then declare war? Not smart.

>Don't know if you noticed this or not, but we've >been doing just that for ten years. We have been >bombing them,
This would be called air dominace of the no-fly-zone, with a catchy little game of don't lock in on our birds ya dip shits>

> sending in the CIA to sponsor anti-Saddam >terrorists, and pursuing inspections all at the same >time.
This is spec warfare and acording to you we do it everywere every day. This is still different than sending in a company to escort the inspectors to the weapons inspectors prom. Glen

• Quote

[rhino 0]

B-1's just took out border radar's in Iraq..

[billvon 3,009]

> This would be called air dominace of the no-fly-zone, with a catchy
>little game of don't lock in on our birds

Yep. Therefore we're sending in troops first, then declaring war.

>ya dip shits

No personal attacks, sorry.

> This is spec warfare and acording to you we do it everywere every day.

Which terrorist groups are we sponsoring in Canada? Britain? Pakistan? Israel? I mean, I know we do it on occasion, but I sure hope we don't do it everywhere every day. You would think we'd eventually learn (say, from our experiences with the Mujahideen) that it's not that great an idea.

[Michele 1]

psssst....BillV....I don't think Vectorboy was calling you "ya dipshits"... attack. When you read it in context, it reads:

"This would be called air dominace of the no-fly-zone, with a catchy
little game of don't lock in on our birds ya dip shits"

"Dipshits" used in the correct, non-split phrase would actually indicate those Iraqis who light up our planes, rather than someone here. With the correct quotes and punctuation, it would be "don't lock in on our birds, ya dipshits".

Hope that helps....

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

>ya dip shits

No personal attacks, sorry.

I guess we all misread things a time or two, right Bill?