HMX explosives left unsecured by troops

[CollectiveInterest]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[CollectiveInterest]

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.

[J. J.]

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?!!

[CollectiveInterest]

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?

[J. J.]

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?

The only thing that I with is that you, DefectiveInfest have lost touch with reality.  In your reality, he may lose, to Napolean I, with John Zogby as Vice President.  In the reality shared by the rest of the planet, Bush defeates Kerry to win a second term as President.

Take your meds.  It might help you deal with reality.

[CollectiveInterest]

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

"agree" should be "angry"

[J. J.]

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

"agree" should be "angry"

So far, I've missed one state.  :-)  Ah, I believbe your record is slightly different.