"Mostly" by themselves, they do a MUCH better job, and...for the most part, All By Thelmselves, without US "Invading" and occupying their countries, to "make-it-so".
Maybe. But in the case of Iraq, the horse is out of the barn. We owe it to the people of the country to be their partner because that's what the U.S. signed on for when it decided to invade the country. Or, liberate it. Whatever you want to call it.
As I said in a previous post, I find that line of thinking amazing. Destroyed Iraqi cities, disrupted the lives of 25 million people. Sowed fear and destruction, and we don't owe them anything.
Thanks for that, but frankly? If that were the case, then what Shiites were tey trying to kill in LONDON? How about in Beirut, in the 80's? Which Shiites were those damn Sunnis trying to kill on 9-11...???
OMG! You can't even keep up with the conversation.
I don't know what the death of the Saudi King and Iran's nuclear program has to do with what I was talking about. The U.S. commitment to Iraq, now that the decision has been made to throw out their leaders and engage in nation building in Iraq.
Here's the main problem with the so-called "war on terrorism":
Congress did not declare a war that it authorizes to be fought in every and any country in the whole world, at the discretion of the president.
If it ever does, you might as well quit pretending that this USA is a republic.
The generals who are detaining people all over the world are of the opinion that these detainees are being "captured on the battleground" in places where there is no formal state of war between those countries and the US.
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
We now know that Iraq did not pose any threat. We now know that people on the left and the right were duped into believing that Iraq was a threat, by lies and propaganda and deceptive manipulation of intelligence.
nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
We now know that Iraq was not in violation of those UN Security Council resolutions, and that a thorough examination of Bush's war hype by the inspectors would have shown that. Bush invaded Iraq, interrupting the work of the inspectors who were trying to do just that. Of course, the inspectors DID manage to expose the forgery that was being used to bolster the untrue claim that Iraq was 6 months to a year away from building a nuke and the means to deliver it.
and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Bush specifically says, in this letter, that the Iraq War is a response to the attacks on 9/11, relying upon the lies and propaganda that claim Iraq was behind 9/11.
In September of 2003, about six months after this letter was delivered, Bush publicly stated that Iraq was not behind 9/11.
Congress gave CONDITIONAL authorization to use force, and in this letter, Bush is claiming that the conditions were met.
Of course, we now know that the conditions were NOT met, and that Bush and his administration conspired to invent fabricated justifications for the war.
Does anyone see anything in this letter about war crimes, liberating people from tyranny, or building a democratic Iraq? Of course not. Those reasons were not reasons that were authorized by the Congress as a suitable pretext for war.
The No-fly zones weren't part of the UN resolutions.
Those were imposed by the allies who were victorious in the Gulf War.
Which country was having it's airspace constantly overflown by foreign hostile forces for years after the war ended? Iraq? Or the United States? Who was attacking whom?
Yea we should have let him wipe out the Kurds, then you could bitch about how we did nothing to help them. This coming from the same guy who was all for going into Kosovo WITHOUT UN approval. As long as it fits your politics hypocrite.
establishes the terms of the peace, including return of Kuwaiti property and prisoners, economic sanctions, and Iraqi disarmament. Iraq is to provide a list of all weapons of mass destruction in its possession. UNSCOM inspectors are to ascertain that the arms have been surrendered.
October, 1991
President Bush informs congress that he is escalating covert operations in Iraq, under the direction of Frank Anderson, head of CIA's Directorate of Operations Near East division.
June 1992
Iraqi National Congress established by 300 delegates in Vienna as the opposition umbrella body, on the initiative of Ahmad Chalabi. Bush informing Congress (Oct91) that he was escalating covert operations in Iraq, under the direction of Frank Anderson, head of CIA's Directorate of Operations Near East division.
Jan 1993
Renewed skirmishes between Iraq and US, UK & France, after Iraq installs surface-to-air missiles in the Southern US/UK-declared no-fly zones, bans UN flights in the southern zone, and makes incursions into the demilitarized zone with Kuwait (ostensibly to remove equipment). Allied bombing in Southern and Northern no-fly-zones (10-19Jan), which kills 43; ends with Baghdad issuing a unilateral ceasefire and rescinding measures.
May 1994
Rivalry between Kurdistan Democratic Party & Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, coalition partners for 5 years, breaks out into open conflict in Northern Iraq. INC, brokers truce, but fighting continues until Sept, and intermittently thereafter despite peace plan of November 94. 3000 killed by Jun96, with PUK controlling half the territory but 2/3rds of the population.
Oct 8-10, 1994
Iraq deploys troops nr the Kuwaiti border; Security Council expresses concern & US, Fr & UK move troops to the region. Iraq announces redeployment.
Nov 6, 1994
Iran fires Scud missiles at bases of Mujahedin al-Khalq in Iraq.
Nov 10, 1994
Iraqi National Assembly officially acknowledges Kuwait’s sovereignty; ratified by RCC in a decree signed by Saddam Hussein on the same day.
Two of Saddam Hussein’s sons-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamil (former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Establishment, in charge of WMD program) and Saddam Kamil defect to Jordan with Saddam's daughters; Hussein Kamil takes crates of documents revealing past concealment of WMD capacities, and provides these to UNSCOM. Iraq responds by revealing a major store of documents that showed that Iraq had begun an unsuccessful crash programme to develop a nuclear bomb (20Aug).
August 20, 1995
Under pressure, Iraq reveals a major store of documents that showed that Iraq had begun an unsuccessful crash program to develop a nuclear bomb.
Feb 23, 1996
Iraqi defectors Hussein and Saddam Kamil are shunned by Iraqi opposition groups, and agree to return to Iraq, where they are promptly assassinated.
June 26, 1996
Attempted coup in Iraq, organised by the Iraqi National Accord and coordinated in part by CIA operatives within UNSCOM, fails when 120 coup plotters are arrested (& laregly executed) by the Iraqi regime. 28July: 72-hour incursion by Iranian forces into Kurdish “safe haven”, focused on Mas’ud Barzani’s KDP camp at Koi Sanjaq. Iraq takes up a stronger stance against Iran’s ally, Jalal Talabani’s PUK.
July 28, 1996
72-hour incursion by Iranian forces into Kurdish “safe haven”, focused on Mas’ud Barzani’s KDP camp at Koi Sanjaq. Iraq takes up a stronger stance against Iran’s ally, Jalal Talabani’s PUK.
August 31, 1996
Iraq, working with the KDP, occupies Irbil (12 miles into NFZ) & destroys Western-backed opposition bases. The KDP takes over most of Iraqi Kurdistan, and Iraqi forces withdraw (2Sept). Saddam Hussein lifts internal economic embargo on the Kurdish region.
Sept 3-4, 1996
US launches military strikes against Sn Iraq & extends Sn no-fly zone to 33rd parallel, the suburbs of Baghdad. Little international backing for these actions, exc from UK. UN postpones implementation of SCR986.
Sept-Oct. 1996
PUK offensive, with Iranian help, in N Iraq recaptures most areas lost in recent KDP offensive, except Irbil, by 21Oct. Ceasefire between PUK & KDP on 23Oct, brokered by US & UK.
Dec 10, 1996
Oil flows for the first time since 1990 from Iraq, through Turkish pipeline. SCR986 (14Apr 95) had permitted exports under the oil-for-food program. In six months, $lbn of revenue generated will be spent on food & medicine for 18 million Iraqis living under Baghdad rule; $260m goes to 3m people in Kurdish areas, only $17 m permitted for essential infrastructure. Since Aug 1990, estimates indicate that 750,000 people have died through malnutrition and lack of medicines; currently, 10,000 a month.
Dec. 12, 1996
Saddam Hussein’s eldest son, Uday, is seriously wounded in an assassination attempt in al-Mansur district, Baghdad.
Oct. 29, 1997
Iraq demands US members of UNSCOM leave Iraq; all UNSCOM inspectors withdrawn (13Nov).
Nov 13, 1997
All UNSCOM inspectors withdrawn from Iraq, but allowed back later that month.
Sept, 1998
UNSCOM Inspector Scott Ritter resigns. Initially claims that US/UN did not act to help UNSCOM investigate suspected Iraqi weapons sites, later claims that the entire inspection program is unwarranted and Iraq has no WMD.
October, 1998
UNSCOM report  shows Iraq has weaponized VX agent despite Iraqi dentials.
Nov 1, 1998
Iraq halts cooperation with UNSCOM.
Nov 15, 1998
US aborts missile strike after Iraq agrees to cooperate with UNSCOM.
Dec 17-20, 1998
Extensive US & British bombardment of Iraq in ‘Operation Desert Fox’, after UNSCOM head reports Iraq’s failure to fully cooperate; after end of the operation, Iraq again refuses UNSCOM permission to reenter Iraq, and US & UK continue bombardment, aimed at Iraq’s air defense capacity.
Dec 17, 1999
Resolution 1284 creates UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission (Unmovic) to replace Unscom. Iraq rejects resolution
November 2000
Deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz rejects new weapons inspection proposals
2001
Following Sept 11, 2001 terror attacks on World Trade Towers, US President Bush declares a War on Terror, targeting Iraq as a major player in an "Axis of Evil." Evidence for Iraqi involvement in the attacks is sketchy, but includes a probable contact between hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraq official in Czechoslovakia, as well as evidence of defectors that prospective hijackers were trained at Salman Pak base.
The Bush Administration (Bush sr) decided to stand back and let Hussein slaughter the Shiites when they rose up to overthrow Hussein at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.
Then they let Hussein use helicopter gunships to quell the Kurds.
WHILE the allies were occupying Iraq.
Where was their outrage over war crimes and tyrrany then?
You were trying to argue that the no-fly zones had something to do with the urgent need to go to war with Iraq.
No, I was merely pointing out that it was an act of war. You of course saw it as an act of war on the U.S part naturally. Ever hear of Operation Desert Fox?
And I loved this doozy
"We now know that Iraq was not in violation of those UN Security Council resolutions"
It's impossible to take anyone that seriously when they can't be honest.
The legality of the "no-fly zones" has always been questionable.
Really, the only reason that they existed is because no power in the world was willing to take on the United States.
Might makes right. No rule of law there.
And you've said twice now that I'm "dishonest" because I've stated that we know FOR A FACT that the weapons Iraq was obligated to destroy under UN resolutions, WERE DESTROYED, long before 2002, long before Resolution 1441, and long before Bush's absurd claims based on lies, forgeries and manipulation of intelligence.
And you've said twice now that I'm "dishonest" because I've stated that we know FOR A FACT that the weapons Iraq was obligated to destroy under UN resolutions, WERE DESTROYED, long before 2002, long before Resolution 1441, and long before Bush's absurd claims based on lies, forgeries and manipulation of intelligence.
Â
I'm not the one who has been dishonest.
Yes you are being dishonest. He broke every damn resolution and only complied when force was either threatened or used ie Desert Fox in 98.Â
The burden was on HIM to prove that he got rid of WMD's Â
We now know that Iraq did not pose any threat. We now know that people on the left and the right were duped into believing that Iraq was a threat, by lies and propaganda and deceptive manipulation of intelligence.
Iraq posed some threat to its own people and its neighbors.
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing totake the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Linked well? The link didn't appear to prove what taraka ass said. It simply said Kofi didn't believe the no fly zones were part of the deal. So you believe Kofi over Bush? There is no need for you to answer that as we know the answer already.
I tend to think the Secretary General of the United Nations would be more qualified to interpret U.N. Resolutions than someone who isn't Secretary General of the United Nations or even part of the United Nations.
 I've stated that we know FOR A FACT that the weapons Iraq was obligated to destroy under UN resolutions, WERE DESTROYED, long before 2002, long before Resolution 1441, and long before Bush's absurd claims based on lies, forgeries and manipulation of intelligence.
and what would Iraq need to develop weapons for... I mean, it's not like someone was going to invade their sovereign country without them attacking anyone first, right?
You know what they represent since we discussed those same pictures seveeral times already. First one is the biological vials that were found in Iraq. Second one is the missiles with hollowed out tips for the delivery of the biological weapons. Third is a nice and shiny centrifuge for enriching uranium and I am sure you realize what that is used for. Fourth is one of the Mig jets that Iraq claimed it did not have. As for getting it going again, all important parts were sealed up pretty good, so it did not take our boys too long to get it into working condition again. The last one of course is the jet fuselage found in one of the terrorist camps that Iraq claimed did not exist. What sort of training do you imagine that one was use for?
I'll bet you can find working planes down in Florida that the terrorist who flew on 9/11 trained with.
So you believe that part of that training in Florida included dry runs of how to pull that attack off? Wouldn't that have drawn unwanted attention to them?
So you believe that part of that training in Florida included dry runs of how to pull that attack off? Wouldn't that have drawn unwanted attention to them?
I believe the story we've been told is a bullshit conspiracy theory.
"Mostly" by themselves, they do a MUCH better job, and...for the most part, All By Thelmselves, without US "Invading" and occupying their countries, to "make-it-so".
Maybe. But in the case of Iraq, the horse is out of the barn. We owe it to the people of the country to be their partner because that's what the U.S. signed on for when it decided to invade the country. Or, liberate it. Whatever you want to call it.
"I don't see how we "Owe" them anything."
As I said in a previous post, I find that line of thinking amazing. Destroyed Iraqi cities, disrupted the lives of 25 million people. Sowed fear and destruction, and we don't owe them anything.
Thanks for that, but frankly? If that were the case, then what Shiites were tey trying to kill in LONDON? How about in Beirut, in the 80's? Which Shiites were those damn Sunnis trying to kill on 9-11...???
OMG! You can't even keep up with the conversation.
Go back and read.
OMG... I Understand!
Well then your post made no frickin' sense whatsoever.
"And we OWE them something?"
Who and what are you talking about?
I don't know what the death of the Saudi King and Iran's nuclear program has to do with what I was talking about. The U.S. commitment to Iraq, now that the decision has been made to throw out their leaders and engage in nation building in Iraq.
Strive to stay on topic.
But I thought you said oil prices would go down?
I'm givin' up on this one.
Here's the main problem with the so-called "war on terrorism":
Congress did not declare a war that it authorizes to be fought in every and any country in the whole world, at the discretion of the president.
If it ever does, you might as well quit pretending that this USA is a republic.
The generals who are detaining people all over the world are of the opinion that these detainees are being "captured on the battleground" in places where there is no formal state of war between those countries and the US.
How's that?
The fact is that Congress gave the authority to Bush to go into Iraq. It was a declaration of war but just didn't use precisely those words.
What's the disadvantage to a declaration of war?
The fact is that Congress gave the authority to Bush to go into Iraq.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002(Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) (H. J. RES. 114) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/hjiraqres100902.html
Â
Letter from President Bush to congress. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
What's the disadvantage to a declaration of war?
I have no idea what the difference would be, but he did get authority from congress to enter into Iraq.
Thank Heaven we're not getting that many fatal casualities.
"Is that too few, or to many dead soldiers...?"
That's a senseless question. There are casualities in war. I'm happy there aren't 58,000.
"But I see every one of them as dead, Stripped of their young lives, in a lost cause. "
Then it can't be allowed to happen.
We now know that Iraq did not pose any threat. We now know that people on the left and the right were duped into believing that Iraq was a threat, by lies and propaganda and deceptive manipulation of intelligence.
We now know that Iraq was not in violation of those UN Security Council resolutions, and that a thorough examination of Bush's war hype by the inspectors would have shown that. Bush invaded Iraq, interrupting the work of the inspectors who were trying to do just that. Of course, the inspectors DID manage to expose the forgery that was being used to bolster the untrue claim that Iraq was 6 months to a year away from building a nuke and the means to deliver it.
Bush specifically says, in this letter, that the Iraq War is a response to the attacks on 9/11, relying upon the lies and propaganda that claim Iraq was behind 9/11.
In September of 2003, about six months after this letter was delivered, Bush publicly stated that Iraq was not behind 9/11.
Congress gave CONDITIONAL authorization to use force, and in this letter, Bush is claiming that the conditions were met.
Of course, we now know that the conditions were NOT met, and that Bush and his administration conspired to invent fabricated justifications for the war.
Does anyone see anything in this letter about war crimes, liberating people from tyranny, or building a democratic Iraq? Of course not. Those reasons were not reasons that were authorized by the Congress as a suitable pretext for war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
Â
We now know that Iraq was not in violation of those UN Security Council resolutions
Really? I guess firing on our planes daily doesn't count either? You're so dishonest it's sad.
Luv2Fly 8/4/05 7:56am
No. Firing on our planes doesn't count.
The No-fly zones weren't part of the UN resolutions.
Those were imposed by the allies who were victorious in the Gulf War.
Which country was having it's airspace constantly overflown by foreign hostile forces for years after the war ended? Iraq? Or the United States? Who was attacking whom?
"The No-fly zones weren't part of the UN resolutions. Those were imposed by the allies who were victorious in the Gulf War."
Didn't know that. Learn something every day.
Oh so firing on our planes is O.K then ?
Yea we should have let him wipe out the Kurds, then you could bitch about how we did nothing to help them. This coming from the same guy who was all for going into Kosovo WITHOUT UN approval. As long as it fits your politics hypocrite.
Â
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htm
UN Security Council Resolution 687
establishes the terms of the peace, including return of Kuwaiti property and prisoners, economic sanctions, and Iraqi disarmament. Iraq is to provide a list of all weapons of mass destruction in its possession. UNSCOM inspectors are to ascertain that the arms have been surrendered.
UN Security Council Resolution 986
establishes the "Oil for Food" Program
28July: 72-hour incursion by Iranian forces into Kurdish “safe haven”, focused on Mas’ud Barzani’s KDP camp at Koi Sanjaq. Iraq takes up a stronger stance against Iran’s ally, Jalal Talabani’s PUK.
UNSCOM report  shows Iraq has weaponized VX agent despite Iraqi dentials.
Extensive US & British bombardment of Iraq in ‘Operation Desert Fox’, after UNSCOM head reports Iraq’s failure to fully cooperate; after end of the operation, Iraq again refuses UNSCOM permission to reenter Iraq, and US & UK continue bombardment, aimed at Iraq’s air defense capacity.
Dec 17, 1999
Resolution 1284 creates UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission (Unmovic) to replace Unscom. Iraq rejects resolution
Whatever Das.
The Bush Administration (Bush sr) decided to stand back and let Hussein slaughter the Shiites when they rose up to overthrow Hussein at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.
Then they let Hussein use helicopter gunships to quell the Kurds.
WHILE the allies were occupying Iraq.
Where was their outrage over war crimes and tyrrany then?
Bush family makes a career of hypocrisy.
So do you.
Luv2Fly 8/4/05 8:22am
What do mean, "whatever?"
You were trying to argue that the no-fly zones had something to do with the urgent need to go to war with Iraq.
As I have shown, the dispute over the no-fly zones had nothing to do with compliance with UN resolutions regarding WMDs.
So, as I said, firing on foreign hostiles operating over Iraqi airspace isn't a case of "Iraq attacking the US."
It's a case of Iraq defending itself against an intrusion into it's airspace.
Interesting bit on the attempt to stage a coup, though....
I think a larger investment in human intelligence would have been a far wiser and more productive move to deal with the tyrant of Iraq.
I still say that a combination of intelligence operations and diplomacy would have toppled Hussein.
He was no where near the kind of threat Bush made him out to be.
You were trying to argue that the no-fly zones had something to do with the urgent need to go to war with Iraq.
No, I was merely pointing out that it was an act of war. You of course saw it as an act of war on the U.S part naturally. Ever hear of Operation Desert Fox?
And I loved this doozy
"We now know that Iraq was not in violation of those UN Security Council resolutions"
It's impossible to take anyone that seriously when they can't be honest.
Â
Â
Â
Â
The legality of the "no-fly zones" has always been questionable.
Really, the only reason that they existed is because no power in the world was willing to take on the United States.
Might makes right. No rule of law there.
And you've said twice now that I'm "dishonest" because I've stated that we know FOR A FACT that the weapons Iraq was obligated to destroy under UN resolutions, WERE DESTROYED, long before 2002, long before Resolution 1441, and long before Bush's absurd claims based on lies, forgeries and manipulation of intelligence.
I'm not the one who has been dishonest.
And you've said twice now that I'm "dishonest" because I've stated that we know FOR A FACT that the weapons Iraq was obligated to destroy under UN resolutions, WERE DESTROYED, long before 2002, long before Resolution 1441, and long before Bush's absurd claims based on lies, forgeries and manipulation of intelligence.
Â
I'm not the one who has been dishonest.
Yes you are being dishonest. He broke every damn resolution and only complied when force was either threatened or used ie Desert Fox in 98.Â
The burden was on HIM to prove that he got rid of WMD's Â
No, our being there to be shot at was an act of war.
We now know that Iraq did not pose any threat. We now know that people on the left and the right were duped into believing that Iraq was a threat, by lies and propaganda and deceptive manipulation of intelligence.
Iraq posed some threat to its own people and its neighbors.
Â
from the letter taraka ass cites:
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing totake the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
He never said Iraq was behind 9/11
"The No-fly zones weren't part of the UN resolutions. Those were imposed by the allies who were victorious in the Gulf War."
the rat's response: Didn't know that. Learn something every day.
So just because he wrote it you believe it?
The legality of the "no-fly zones" has always been questionable.
No. Those that win the war can dictate the peace terms.
"So just because he wrote it you believe it?"
He linked it as well.
Linked well? The link didn't appear to prove what taraka ass said. It simply said Kofi didn't believe the no fly zones were part of the deal. So you believe Kofi over Bush? There is no need for you to answer that as we know the answer already.
I tend to think the Secretary General of the United Nations would be more qualified to interpret U.N. Resolutions than someone who isn't Secretary General of the United Nations or even part of the United Nations.
I'm funny that way. Call it a quirk.
 I've stated that we know FOR A FACT that the weapons Iraq was obligated to destroy under UN resolutions, WERE DESTROYED, long before 2002, long before Resolution 1441, and long before Bush's absurd claims based on lies, forgeries and manipulation of intelligence.
I think it's an abandoned plane shell that alleged terrorists allegedly used to train with..
but you know what?
I'll bet you can find working planes down in Florida that the terrorist who flew on 9/11 trained with.
and what would Iraq need to develop weapons for... I mean, it's not like someone was going to invade their sovereign country without them attacking anyone first, right?
What the hell would you know about attacking first, Mr. anyone can beat the crap out me pacifist?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/04/music.soldiers.song.ap/index.html
You're so easily pleased, man. Grabbing you're gland, man? You never served, man. I mean, you don't know shit, man.
Â
I don't say anything but everyone shit hammers me, man.
I mean shit, man!
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHA!
the rat wrote: I'm funny that way. Call it a quirk.
I'm an American, dumbass.
what happened to "Quit talking to me crabgrass"?
I can't quit talking to you if you keep asking me questions, dumbass.
I am not sure what those pictures represent Dan
You know what they represent since we discussed those same pictures seveeral times already. First one is the biological vials that were found in Iraq. Second one is the missiles with hollowed out tips for the delivery of the biological weapons. Third is a nice and shiny centrifuge for enriching uranium and I am sure you realize what that is used for. Fourth is one of the Mig jets that Iraq claimed it did not have. As for getting it going again, all important parts were sealed up pretty good, so it did not take our boys too long to get it into working condition again. The last one of course is the jet fuselage found in one of the terrorist camps that Iraq claimed did not exist. What sort of training do you imagine that one was use for?
I'll bet you can find working planes down in Florida that the terrorist who flew on 9/11 trained with.
So you believe that part of that training in Florida included dry runs of how to pull that attack off? Wouldn't that have drawn unwanted attention to them?
I believe the story we've been told is a bullshit conspiracy theory.