HMX explosives left unsecured by troops (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 06:23:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  HMX explosives left unsecured by troops (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: HMX explosives left unsecured by troops  (Read 27936 times)
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW
« on: November 01, 2004, 08:38:22 PM »

Writing about the ratio of metric tons to soldiers is pointless.

Since the stuff was in secure sites, the appropriate numbers are to discuss how many sites and how many GIs it would take to secure each site.

If the answer is that the US military doesn't have enough people, maybe Bush and Rumsfeld should have considered this important before the war.
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2004, 08:59:35 PM »

Writing about the ratio of metric tons to soldiers is pointless.

Since the stuff was in secure sites, the appropriate numbers are to discuss how many sites and how many GIs it would take to secure each site.

If the answer is that the US military doesn't have enough people, maybe Bush and Rumsfeld should have considered this important before the war.

Hardly pointless, it is making the point of the amount of explosives this guy had.  It highlights the treat that Hussein was to America and Ameriican interests.

Were these explosives used against US citizens before Bush invaded? After he invaded?

Do you Bushies care about what happens in the real world?

You guys create this paranoid fantasyland where Saddam Hussein is evil and irrational and possessed far more capability than he did. But the reality was that he wasn't much of a threat--even if he wanted to be--and he wasn't the irrational actor you Bushies portray him as.
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2004, 11:07:29 PM »

Writing about the ratio of metric tons to soldiers is pointless.

Since the stuff was in secure sites, the appropriate numbers are to discuss how many sites and how many GIs it would take to secure each site.

If the answer is that the US military doesn't have enough people, maybe Bush and Rumsfeld should have considered this important before the war.

Hardly pointless, it is making the point of the amount of explosives this guy had.  It highlights the treat that Hussein was to America and Ameriican interests.

Were these explosives used against US citizens before Bush invaded? After he invaded?

Do you Bushies care about what happens in the real world?

You guys create this paranoid fantasyland where Saddam Hussein is evil and irrational and possessed far more capability than he did. But the reality was that he wasn't much of a threat--even if he wanted to be--and he wasn't the irrational actor you Bushies portray him as.

Ah, let's see, the good, happy, peaceful Saddam:

1.  Invaded Iran.

2.  Invaded Kuwait.

3.  Attempted to assissinate a former US president.

4.  Continiously fired at US and allied planes enforcing the no fly zones (ah, Bill Clinton had a little problem with him too.)

5.  Sheltered terrorist, notably Abu Nidal, who was the mastermind of the Achilli Loro attack.

DefectiveInfest, what planet are you from?!!

Dude, you seem agree. Why? Is it because you know Bush is gonna lose?
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2004, 08:59:59 AM »



Dude, you seem agree. Why? Is it because you know Bush is gonna lose?

"agree" should be "angry"
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 14 queries.