5 time champ, check above. I left out two small words. Just to be clear, I was not in the armed forces.
The last draftees were born in '52. There were no American combat troops in Vietnam after 1973. You would remember if you had been drafted. Don’t blame it on the drugs.
Yeah, but is it still Canadian?
Sam, you’re going to have to bump it up a little bit more, because $20 Canadian is enough to, what, buy a soda in the US?
Kidding. 
Sam Stone said
Sam. I’ll go you one better. Keep your worthless Canadian $20. I don’t need something that small. 
*
I’ll bet you $20 US, that if and when the US goes into Syria that we use the pretext that the WMD were moved there. I’ll give you full credit for being the tipster.
*This was not meant to denigrate Canadian posters. You are worth more than the poor Canadian dollar. I am old enough to remember when the Canadian $ was worth $1.09US.
I corrected my mistake OK? I was not confused about whether I was drafted or not. I was not. I am unclear as to what the Americans that remained in Vietnam until '75 were there for. I just don’t remember.
When I wrote out that post I went back and erased parts several times to reword it. I screwed up and didn’t see what I did right away.
We shall have to see. I wouldn’t be suprised to learn that a little bit was purposely revealed and the rest hidden.
By “find WMD” do you mean a credible threats worth, as implied by the president, or just any old germ-bomb that’s been rusting in the desert since the ceasefire with Iran ? This isn’t just about WMD, it’s about how many there are, and what shape they are in to inflict harm on the American population.
Better make these jokes while you can: The Canadian dollar is up almost 10% since January 1.
I think it’s possible that biological or chemical weapons may be found but hell, I though this country was suppossed to be crawling with them. I’m finding the possibility to be vanishing more each day. The numerous bungles don’t help their credibilty though… there’s nothing wrong with waiting a couple of days to make sure you have it right.
Define what will constitute a legitimate find and I may take that bet. Let’s define the term.
Oh, but of course. The donkey can never quite reach the carrot. I suspect the magical mystery WMD tour will continue right up to… November 2004.
I agree 110% (I just know I wouldn’t offer to buy drinks with that hanging out there.)
It appears to me that a retraction would be a mischaracterization of this story you cite.
Fox seems to be doing a fair job at impartiality and presenting an opposing viewpoint to the earlier story which would suggest a potential explanation.
We willl have to see what it actually is. If the radiation levels presented in the earlier story are correct, I would guess it was something other than what this latter story is supposing.
First I wanted to say that (aside from a couple of general “fuck” comments) this is one of the first debates on the war I’ve seen here that hasn’t immediately devolved into a “Peacenik” vs “Warmonger” crapstorm. Seriously, it’s a topic that brings up a lot of strong emotions and this has been handled very maturely. And in the Pit yet
OK, tongue out of everyone’s ass now.
I have to take issue with some of this. If the President can’t make a convincing case for us to go to war based on Exhibit A (“SH & Co. are nasty brutal SOBs and the Iraqi people will be better with them pushing up the daisies”) then it’s not kosher for him to drag out Exhibit B (“SH has WMD”) when there’s serious doubts about the veracity of B and expect us all to go along with it. Our courts don’t work that way (“OK we couldn’t get him on anything but he’s mean and deserves to be in jail so here’s some trumped-up charge to put him there”) and I really don’t want my government to operate that way either. That’s just dishonest and it gives me a very bad feeling about the trustworthiness of the current administration.
I guess that I’m part of the antiwar crowd (because I don’t think that the case has been made that war is necessary, not because of any love for SH or dislike of GWB), and I don’t know anyone who has suggested that the US would plant evidence of WMD to justify the war after the fact. I’m sure that there are some loudmouths saying this but don’t judge everyone by that and the presence or absence of WMD is not a moot point to me or anyone that I know.
skank, I was born the same year as you and I never even registered for the draft. Wasn’t required at all for a while after Vietnam. Read the following:
Hasn’t Skank back pedaled enough? He got busted…let him be.
I replied because I was really really surprised at that one. I knew I was one of the fortunate few who never even had to register, so for someone from the class of '57 to say that they were drafted was way weird.
Back to the OP, long as I’m here: I’m reading an article now that says that the war may have allowed for the dispersal of WMDs if they were in Iraq, or simply for the dispersal of radioactive material even if they weren’t used for weapons. Interesting, and it means the Bushies may have actually caused more harm than good from that POV:
Here’s one thing that alarms me:
Iraq has constantly maintained it has no WMDs. Whether or not they actually have any, they at least have them in a sufficiently small amount that no trace of them has yet been found. The US invaded them.
North Korea has definitely got WMD. Their leader has been jumping up and down proclaiming the same. The US has done nothing to them.
Leading aside questions of justice, doesn’t this send the rather unfortunate message that the best way to prevent a US invasion is to acquire WMD?
This’ll probably only be available for a few more days, so enjoy it while you can:
Like everyone else on this board, I don’t know if WMD will be found or not. Proclaiming at this point that they won’t, however, is jumping the gun just a bit.
Here is a Fox news story quoting a “Senior defence official”
With over 1000 sites to check, it’s unrealistic to expectd pay dirt within the first 2%.