WMD's Found!

NOT (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_weapons).

"I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction"

Im sure lots of murderers feel they will get away with it too.

I think our goverment should make its decisions based on more than just one guy's feelings. Especially decisions costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

BTW carrrnuttt, I didnt believe your title for a second! If he really did find em, I think Yogs wouldve beat you to it.

Yup. Pisses me off everytime I think about it.

Sweet!

"Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people," said Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

Ha! So that's why so many US soldiers (aka American people) needlessly lost their lives?

"Who knows what they are going to do?" asked Thielmann, who left his position in September 2002. "One can question whether we improved the security situation through the invasion."

He can say that again. All the U.S. did is make even more enemies.

It's time for Bush to stand up and say he really invaded Iraq because he wanted to...

It's about oil, but of course someone can now say the WMD's are buried in the desert somewhere.

The correct argument in favour of WMD seems to now be...'prove that they never existed'.

My reply to that is.......If I asked you to prove that the President never had sex with an elephant, you couldn't.However, the fact that you cant prove he didn't doesn't add up to any proof that he did.

All I will ask, for the umpteenth time, is .........why, when 'intelligence' suggested that Saddam had the capability to deploy WND at 45 minutes notice has nobody ever found any sign of them, or a factory capable of manufacturing them.?

It's been two years almost since Bush sent his troops in.They've not seen any sign that these weapons ever existed.They've tried posting huge rewards for information.They've promised key Iraqis new lives in America if they can betray Saddam.They've illegally detained and tortured people to try and find the information that might just justify their theft of Iraq...but nothing.

Somebody,please, prove that these weapons were ever more than wishful thinking.I'm sure George would be eternally grateful if you could, because right now, the truth is making him look as dumb as a rock.

I think he needed/wanted a reason to go in, and the intelligence was skewed to give him what he wanted.

Should have removed Saddam in 91, then this debacle wouldn't have had to happen.

I think he needed/wanted a reason to go in, and the intelligence was skewed to give him what he wanted.


10-08-2002.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=614723&postcount=6

There we go; you said it truly.

But to play devils advocate, why the shell game with the inspectors? What about the video evidence that numerous trucks departed from factories minutes (sometimes less than a minute) prior to the inspectors' arrival? Is it possible that WMD's are buried out in the desert somewhere?

Sure it's possible, but it's probably equally possible that georgie did in fact boof the elephant, after all i'm sure hes had more time with nobody looking, and there were the drugs. If the trucks etc were percieved as such a possibility surely they would have been tracked and inspectors could have been re-routed to inspect them, sounds easier than a war doesn't it?

Agreed; and with the current movie technology, the trucks could have easily been inserted into the grainy video that was shot from ground level.

Where to start where to start... I leave these forums for a little while and everything goes to hell.

No WMD's in Iraq? Damn it, I guess I was completely wrong... no wait, I wasn't. :grinyes:

What better way to protect the American people than to stick some hundreds of thousands of them in harms way for neocon ideology?

Naki, that was 10/07/2002 btw :p


Once more, I will state there is a glaring problem with the "they could be buried in the desert!" bleating. The US has some of the most sophisticated satellite based ground penetrating radar there is. Anything store in a metal container bigger than one foot by one foot will show up easily if they're looking for it, and believe me, they would have looked for it. Any significant stockpile stored even in plastic containers would easily be spotted as a depression filled with a completely different type of media than the surrounding desert. EASY TO SPOT.

After the satellite spots it, you send a ground team with much more accurate ground penetrating sonar equipment, and you'll find out exactly what is down there. This is the same equipment paleotologists use to locate small dinosaur skeletons and human remains, it is more than accurate enough to determine if there is even a tupperware container full of bread mold down there, let alone thousands of kilos of anthrax.

GIVE IT UP.

It's good to poke my head back in here again :iceslolan

So is anybody keeping track of just how many stupid points GWB is racking up?
Hmmmm, those imaginary WMDs, boy howdy - Saddam really fooled the crap out ol' Bush Jr. doesn't take much to fool an idiot though. :p

The scary part of this is the US reaction about the intelligence failure. "We need better intelligence! We need a single agency that coordinates all other intelligence agencies, and a one man to oversee it all!" Wasn't this what they said after the 911 Commission findings as well?

Call me paranoid, but this has tones of 1984 written all over it.

If I asked you to prove that the President never had sex with an elephant, you couldn't.However, the fact that you cant prove he didn't doesn't add up to any proof that he did.

An elephant is kind hard to sneak into the White House maybe a chicken or rabbit!

haha... i think he actually used to live somewhere else.

has micheal jackson got an elephant on his ranch?

The correct argument in favour of WMD seems to now be...'prove that they never existed'.

My reply to that is.......If I asked you to prove that the President never had sex with an elephant, you couldn't.However, the fact that you cant prove he didn't doesn't add up to any proof that he did.


There is a difference here concerning the WMD Saddam had them he admitted it the UN weapons inspectors were there to find and account for all of them. Hans Blix reported to the UN about the missing WMD and the actions of the Iraq miltary. Some of the WMD were not found and couldn't be accounted for so since they could not be found it was assumed that they were hidden.

If you seen a bank statement saying I had a thousand dollars and I show you I only have 500 dollars you would be wondering what happened with the other 500 dollars. That is totally different then saying the president had sex with an elephant.

We still have unaccounted for WMD, maybe it was bad record keeping by the UN or by Iraq. Iraq admitted to having "X" amount of WMD and they only showed "Y" amount being destroyed.

look. saddam HAD WMD. america, and her allies, sold them to him. simple enough.

did he get rid of them? all evidence so far points to "yes"

if we do, however, find the WMD bush claimed existed still in iraq, i personally will write W an apology for ever questioning his "intellegence" or decision to invade iraq.

i only wish bush supporters would be so willing to admit when they are wrong.

they gave up too soon

they gave up too soon

I think the families of the soldiers dead, wounded and still there would have to disagree with you. Besides, 2 years for something that he could have had "ready at 45 minutes notice"? I think Dubya had plenty of time. And there is a reason he found nothing.

Like smurff said, I wish Bushites would just suck up some pride and admit they were wrong. Especially The Original Bushite.

(No, its not Yogs)

look. saddam HAD WMD. america, and her allies, sold them to him. simple enough.

did he get rid of them? all evidence so far points to "yes"

if we do, however, find the WMD bush claimed existed still in iraq, i personally will write W an apology for ever questioning his "intellegence" or decision to invade iraq.

I disagree.

The WMD motive has 2 components.

1. The physical possession of the WMD and delivery mechanisms.
2. The willingness to deploy them.

If 1. were true, then 2. has been proven untrue because they weren't used.

But WMD's were used against the Kurds. So at one point Saddam did have them, and did use them.


Dubya did an elephant? Was this on FOX or CBS?

But WMD's were used against the Kurds. So at one point Saddam did have them, and did use them.Both sentences are true.

However, it is not a certainty that Saddam used WMD against the Kurds at Halabja. This occured during a crossfire incident during the Iran/Iraq war. The U.S. Army War College determined that it was Iranian weapons that killed the Kurds. Rumsfeld also jumped to Saddam's defence at the time and said that it was Iranian weapons.

It is strange that Iran would intentionally bomb the Kurds since they were somewhat allied in their fight against Saddam, although given that the locality was overtaken multiple times by both sides, a battlefield blunder is a definite probability.

In any case, getting back to your point - that was in the 80's during the Iran/Iraq conflict 2 decades before the current invasion (or liberation if you prefer to call it that). If you want to discuss that conflict I suggest starting another thread because it opens a whole other (but not unrelated) can of worms.

My previous post about
1. possession of WMD and
2. the will to deploy them
has been shown by very recent history to be mutually exclusive.
i.e.
If he had them, he was unwilling to use them - because he didn't use them.
If he was willing to use them, then he obviously didn't have them - because he didn't use them.

The only other possibility is that he had them and was unable to use them because the coalition forces interdicted their use. Since the coalition forces preventing Saddam using his WMD would require knowledge of their whereabouts, they would have been found (or what was left of them) - but they weren't found.

OTOH, modern variants of napalm and cluster bombs have been used in Iraq lately. Here we have a very clear demonstration of WMD possession AND a willingness to deploy them.....

But WMD's were used against the Kurds. So at one point Saddam did have them, and did use them.


And cocaine was once actually used in Coca-Cola...but its not now.

they gave up too soon

Go show them where they should look then.

If you really believe that they exist,I can do you a real good deal on a truckload of yacht fuel...freight free!

The search teams have been under enormous pressure to get Bush off the hook.Having denied the UN access to search for the weapons,in the hope that his Marines could find them and discredit the UN,Bush is left with egg all over his face when he finally admits that the findings of the UN were correct.

Those of you who cling to the notion that 'Saddam admitted to having them' truly amuse me....How is it that you are willing to accept as fact his claims to have manufactured them, but refuse point blank to even consider the possibvbility that they were destroyed?

A more credible scenario is that an unpopular leader in a country weakened by US-initiated sanctions decided that the only way to stall any takeover by the west or his own neighbors was to claim to be in possession of them.After the 'Kurd-gassing' incident, it would be very easy to convince people that he was the instigator, even if it was in fact Iran's WMD program that was responsible for the deaths of the Kurds.Iran would have nothing to lose by denying that it accidentally or incidentally gassed a civilian population as part of an ongoing war with Iraq,and a leader like Saddam would relish the chance to use it as a display of power,even if he was ,in fact, incapable of supplying the weapons himself.

It's scary to think that Bush can stand in front of a camera and tell the world that he still thinks this war is a good idea.It's attitudes like that that allowed Vietnam to fester for so long.He should do the decent thing and stand down,he's a failure.His mission to bring peace to Iraq has not succeeded,and he has not delivered value for money to Americans.

The generous amount pledged to the tsunami victims in Asia is roughly equivalent to what gets spent in Iraq every two days.For his tsunami donation,Mr Bush is saving lives,providing food amnd shelter, and building relationships between people of different race and faith.For his Iraq debacle, he is losing Marines at an alarming rate, leaving Iraqis homeless and without services, and creating racial tensions that will linger for decades.

2400 Americans died in the WTC attack.4000 Americans are missing presumed drowned in the tsunami disaster.The pain that America felt after the WTC attacks was cynically manipulated by Bush's men to justify an unwarranted attack on Iraq.Lets see if the pain of the American family affected by the tsunami gets any more than a token gesture by the fool on the hill.

Wait wait wait wait wait.


So the US Government just admitted they went to war for no reason whatsoever to their people.

And they're doing nothing?

Apathy rules, meh.

OTOH, modern variants of napalm and cluster bombs have been used in Iraq lately. Here we have a very clear demonstration of WMD possession AND a willingness to deploy them.....


Naplam and cluster bombs are not considered WMD.

Not by government standards no, but it's a question of perception.

What would you consider mass destruction?

A house bombed?

A village bombed?

A city flattened?

Naplam and cluster bombs are not considered WMD.

By who? Scroll down to the bold text in the cut & pasted UN resolution below - which was taken from here (http://www.idust.net/Law/Treaties.htm)



International peace and security as an essential condition for the enjoyment of human rights, above all the right to life

Sub-Commission resolution 1996/16

The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,

Guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto,

Recalling General Assembly resolutions 42/99 of 7 December 1987 and 43/111 of 8 December 1988 reaffirming that all people have an inherent right to life,

Concerned at the alleged use of weapons of mass or indiscriminate destruction both against members of the armed forces and against civilian populations, resulting in death, misery and disability,

Concerned also at repeated reports on the long-term consequences of the use of such weapons upon human life and health and upon the environment,

Concerned further that the physical effects on the environment, the debris from the use of such weapons, either alone or in combination, and abandoned contaminated equipment constitute a serious danger to life,

Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with international human rights and humanitarian law,

Believing that continued efforts must be undertaken to sensitize public opinion to the inhuman and indiscriminate effects of such weapons and to the need for their complete elimination,

Convinced that the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security,

1. Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium;

2. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To collect information from Governments, the competent United Nations bodies and agencies and non-governmental organizations on the use of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium, on their consequential and cumulative effects, and on the danger they represent to life, physical security and other human rights;

(b) To submit a report on the information gathered to the Sub-Commission at its forty-ninth session, together with any recommendations and views which he may have received on effective ways and means of eliminating such weapons;

3. Decides to give further consideration to this matter at its forty-ninth session, on the basis of any additional information which may be contained in reports of the Secretary-General to the Sub-Commission or to other United Nations bodies, or which may be submitted to the Sub-Commission by Governments or non-governmental organizations.

34th meeting
29 August 1996
[Adopted by 15 votes to 1, with 8 abstentions.]



Those same people wouldn't consider depleted uranium WMD either, but it kills people much more slowly and continues to kill them with cancer for generations into the future - after polluting the soil, air and water.

Those same people wouldn't consider a bunker buster WMD, even though the two dropped on the Amiriyah bomb shelter killed hundreds to thousands of women and children - those that weren't killed by the explosion and fire were broiled and steamed as the water storage tanks vaporized.

Naplam and cluster bombs are not considered WMD.

You are just chock-full of excuses, aren't 'cha?

Have yall forgotten that WMD's was not the single reason for invading Iraq. 1. Saddam not following UN Sanctions, and it took 18 resolutions for him to keep disobeying them. 2. Saddam was shooting at U.S. pilots on a daily bases. 3. He supported terrorist. 4. suspected WMD's
5. He killed thousands of his own people.

Why are you people so quick to believe that 700 tons of explosives could be removed under our noses, yet you are quick to dismiss the fact that Iraq could move a couple of tons of wmd's before the war even started?

To think that the world is better off with Saddam in power is simply retarded!

Have yall forgotten that WMD's was not the single reason for invading Iraq.
have you forgotten that 'disarmament' was the biggest pushing force Georgie had for invasion?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/bush.iraq/

Bush: "We cannot wait for the final proof ... that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.war.bush/

"American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger," Bush said.

1. Saddam not following UN Sanctions, and it took 18 resolutions for him to keep disobeying them.
There's a wonderful irony that people squeal about Saddam not obeying UN resolutions as a justification forTHEIR country ignoring a UNresolution and starting a war.



Why are you people so quick to believe that 700 tons of explosives could be removed under our noses, yet you are quick to dismiss the fact that Iraq could move a couple of tons of wmd's before the war even started?



Because not only were no WMD found, but no evidence of weapon imports, materials imports, or manufacturing processes were found either.Saddam did not have the capability to manufacture weapons or the contacts to purchase them.Even Bush has admitted the truth.it's time that you admitted it to yourself.

Bush outlined specific steps Saddam must step to avoid "any conflict."

The president said Saddam must:


Declare and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions.


End its support for terrorism.


Cease the persecution of its civilian population.


Stop all illicit trade outside the U.N. oil-for-food program.


Release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including one American pilot whose fate remains unknown.

"I hope this will not require military action, but it may," Bush said. "And military conflict could be difficult."

Even as he outlined the steps he wanted Saddam to take, Bush expressed his doubt that the Iraqi leader would do so, but he made it clear that the United States would not allow the status quo to continue.

"I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein," Bush said.

The speech came on the anniversary of the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and Bush linked Saddam to the broader war against terrorism.

Taken from the links that carrnutt gave to me, it appears that there were a few more reasons for the invasion.

Yes the disarmament was the major reason for war. To disarm Saddam's regime, not just his wmd's program.

You are just chock-full of excuses, aren't 'cha?
Whatever makes you feel better.

There's a wonderful irony that people squeal about Saddam not obeying UN resolutions as a justification forTHEIR country ignoring a UNresolution and starting a war.

Can you tell me what UN resolution the US broke when we invaded Iraq?

"I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein," Bush said.


hmm... a quick rephrase/paraphrase might sound somthing like......"I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Bush's judgement?"

I agree that Saddam is a terrible leader, but I think our invasion wasn't the right direction in fighting terrorist. The question still remains: How do you fight terrorism?

Proper support and cooperation between other sovereign parties and their people would of been a good start. I guess we've shot ourselves in the foot, and still persist on walking.

To fight terrorists, first you need to understand them and their motives.

They hate us because we're free and they hate us because they hate freedom doesn't even come close to understanding. The really sad thing is that it isn't even meant to.

I think many governments of the West would be too embarassed to entertain public scrutiny of the motives of Bin Laden et al - for the same reason that 8000 pages of Hans Blix's 12000 page WMD report was omitted from all copies supplied to the UN, except the 5 permanent security council members - self incrimination.

we've beat this horse to death, but im bored, so....

1. Saddam not following UN Sanctions, and it took 18 resolutions for him to keep disobeying them.
and how many UN resolutions is israel in violation of? i encourage you to look into that.

2. Saddam was shooting at U.S. pilots on a daily bases.
if enemy planes were flying over my country and bombing shit, so would i.

3. He supported terrorist.
school of the americas anyone? CIA funding and training of binladen?

4. suspected WMD's a severe lack of proof as well. you can suspect ANYONE of having WMD, and if we are going to let this be a criteria for preemptive invasion, lord help us all, it will be international mcarthy-ism

5. He killed thousands of his own people.
perhaps the best argument for intervention, but it was discussed (in this thread i believe) that we cant actually be sure if it was iran or iraq that gassed those poor kurds. though, truth be told, his regime did torture people. but i can think of a few american allies and trading partners that do as well...

To think that the world is better off with Saddam in power is simply retarded!
and to think the world is better off now that we've invaded iraq is just as retarded.

if these were reasons to overthrow a government, why havent we invaded China? Israel? Iran? North Korea? Ourselves?

Bush outlined specific steps Saddam must step to avoid "any conflict."

The president said Saddam must:


Declare and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions.


End its support for terrorism.


Cease the persecution of its civilian population.


Stop all illicit trade outside the U.N. oil-for-food program.


Release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including one American pilot whose fate remains unknown.

"I hope this will not require military action, but it may," Bush said. "And military conflict could be difficult."

Even as he outlined the steps he wanted Saddam to take, Bush expressed his doubt that the Iraqi leader would do so, but he made it clear that the United States would not allow the status quo to continue.

"I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein," Bush said.

The speech came on the anniversary of the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and Bush linked Saddam to the broader war against terrorism.

Taken from the links that carrnutt gave to me, it appears that there were a few more reasons for the invasion.

Yes the disarmament was the major reason for war. To disarm Saddam's regime, not just his wmd's program.

umm aside from the fact that this is all just Georgie hearsay, cause howd he actually show that saddam had weapons, or links to terrorism if he has to come out later and say uh sorry bad intel...

persecution of Iraqi civilians... yeah thats stopped!

release all prisoners... ummm guantanamo.

it's pretty easy to see why this war is completely hypocritical.
i didn't realsie napalm and depleted uranium were included with WMD. suppose that shows who has them and who is willing to use them... again and again.

There's a wonderful irony that people squeal about Saddam not obeying UN resolutions as a justification forTHEIR country ignoring a UNresolution and starting a war.


While not necessarily a resolution (it's semantics) the UN did not sanction the US going into Iraq. I'm in agreement here, the US went against the UN in starting the war, and it's hypocritical to have done so.



Because not only were no WMD found, but no evidence of weapon imports, materials imports, or manufacturing processes were found either.Saddam did not have the capability to manufacture weapons or the contacts to purchase them.Even Bush has admitted the truth.it's time that you admitted it to yourself.

Agreed. The "elections" are to be within 2 weeks. Let's see how fast the US can get out after they're completed.

I watched part of the Barbara Walters interview of the President. His attitude seemed to be arrogant, as in "I'm going to keep my armies in there as long as I want to". Bad choice IMO.

school of the americas anyone?
Wow, I guess some people actually know some stuff in here. But don't focus on America's shortcomings, the only reason we bully smaller countries is because it's easier than looking at our own problems. :)

Yep; I'm a firm believer in getting your own house in order before you go messing around in someone else's house.

To fight terrorists, first you need to understand them and their motives.

I think many governments of the West would be too embarassed to entertain public scrutiny of the motives of Bin Laden et al -

Out of curiosity..Just what are his motives?

Yep; I'm a firm believer in getting your own house in order before you go messing around in someone else's house.
So....make certain your nation is safe by squelching those lame brained nutsacks who want to do us harm. Makes perfect sense to most normal people.

So....make certain your nation is safe by squelching those lame brained nutsacks who want to do us harm. Makes perfect sense to most normal people.

It makes sense, as long as you really are taking out known terrorists that are currently active against the U.S. However, it's been pretty well shown, like many suspected, that Iraq - including the citizens of Fallujah - was not active (until the U.S. led invasion), and didn't plan to be active, against the U.S.

didn't.... yep Georgie boy's sure made the U.S a lot safer!

I feel MUCH safer with George in the Whitehouse!

It makes sense, as long as you really are taking out known terrorists that are currently active against the U.S. However, it's been pretty well shown, like many suspected, that Iraq - including the citizens of Fallujah - was not active (until the U.S. led invasion), and didn't plan to be active, against the U.S.

You are assuming Iraq was invaded due to terrorism.

You are assuming Iraq was invaded due to terrorism.

Actually no, I was countering gladhatter's comment by saying the invasion of Iraq made no sense, according to his theory, since they weren't active terrorists.

I feel MUCH safer with George in the Whitehouse!

DEPENDS I GUESS, ARE YOU SAFER WHEN YOU THINK YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF FROM THOSE THAT WOULD DO YOU HARM, OR ARE YOU SAFER WHEN THERE IS NOBODY THAT WOULD DO YOU HARM?

THIS IS LIKE A RIGHT-LEFT THING, NEITHER IS COMPLETELY ACHIEVABLE, BUT WHICH WAY IS IT BETTER TO SWING?

DEPENDS I GUESS, ARE YOU SAFER WHEN YOU THINK YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF FROM THOSE THAT WOULD DO YOU HARM, OR ARE YOU SAFER WHEN THERE IS NOBODY THAT WOULD DO YOU HARM?

THIS IS LIKE A RIGHT-LEFT THING, NEITHER IS COMPLETELY ACHIEVABLE, BUT WHICH WAY IS IT BETTER TO SWING?

STOP.





























You're gonna make him think...











...or maybe not.

I feel MUCH safer with George in the Whitehouse!

i certainly dont feel any safer with W in the whitehouse. maybe its the fear mongering, but i feel like there is a much higher chance of a terrorist attack now than there was prior to invading iraq.

i also feel much more likely to get beat up by a testosterone junky republican for speaking out against war.

I feel MUCH safer with George in the Whitehouse!

:lol2: thank goodness someone here has a sense of humour! We were getting a bit too serious there for a second.

I feel MUCH safer with George in the Whitehouse!

If Bush would of done something about North Korea instead of freaking out about Iraq I'd agree with you there.

sometimes i honestly think it's a shame there's no body to "do something" about the U.S. so the whole world could be a safer place.

sometimes i honestly think it's a shame there's no body to "do something" about the U.S. so the whole world could be a safer place.

You come across as England and France in 1940. They said Europe would be a safer place if somebod could "do something" about Germany.

Are you saying the U.S. is to the world as Germany was to Europe?

sometimes i honestly think it's a shame there's no body to "do something" about the U.S. so the whole world could be a safer place.

How is the US policy affecting your safety in New Zealand?

How is the US policy affecting your safety in New Zealand?

I'll give you two small examples,both directly affecting me.

For the last 20 years, the factory that I work at has made cheese slices.The security system for the plant has peen geared more to keeping the cheese inside than strangers outside.One of our occasional clients has been the US Army. Suddenly arrangements that worked perfectly for 20 years were deemed inadequate.Despite the fact that no terrorist ever felled a single Marine with a sabotaged slice of McCheese,the powers that be demanded that fences be topped with barbed wire, electronic gates be installed, all staff wear photo ID,all visitors wear fluoro jackets,etc etc....

For the last 18 years I have been fishing off rocks behind Port Taranaki. in all of that time, I've never heard of a terrorist using the port as a location to sabotage or smuggle goods destinred for the States[or any location in NZ come to that] yet again, the powers that be have demanded that because the port ships direct to the States,barbed wire,electronic gates,security cameras,......and a no-go area outside the perimeter including my favorite fishing spot.

These are not infringements upon my safety- they are infringements upon my freedom in my own country, because America elected a chickenshit.The pendulum of security has swung to the opposite extreme for one reason only.Because if Bush can't keep his own people scared, he can't justify pouring billions of dollars into an unwinnable war against an invisible enemy.Just how invisible?Ask Bin Laden.If the most extensive security network in the world can ever find him.