This makes me wonder about polls and the people being polled. Do they form thier opinions based on "George Bush hatimg Black people"?

Zogby poll: Majority of likely voters support considering impeachment
if Bush lied on Iraq, 51-45 percent

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Zogby_Americans_support_consideration_of_impeachme nt_1104.html

...why wouldn't you support impeachment if we find out he really did lie to all of America about the justifications for a war? Sounds like a good reason to impeach regardless of party affiliation...

All the evidence points to him not being a liar. At this point in time there is no reason.

There would have to be indisputable information suggesting that Bush did lie. This would include any and all sources of legitimate intelligence painting a different picture.

How bout, all the democrats, instead of tryin to get bush introuble , go do your job, and quit crying

I coule go on for hours on this subject! iraq was a mess, so we are cleaning it up. why? cause we are the police of the world, thats why...

No.

All the Democrats anxiously awaiting in line to hit the Bush pinata is exactly the problem. We already have one detailed report the Dems demanded that suggested poor national and international intelligence was to blame, nothing more.

So are they going to the pull a hat trick on the intelligence Bush received aside from Congress (which he does receive from the CIA)? Maybe so which could possibly carry an impeachment... But if they don't it doesn't matter anyway because so many people will be convinced despite the surfacing of another report that clears his name based on poor intelligence gathering. Hell, they already do! Meanwhile, the Dems will have another 30 months to turn another fiasco into the partisan issue they crave.

The poll that this thread is about says would you support impeachment IF it is proven that the president lied. It isn't asking would you support impeachment right now.

I know.

And you still wouldn't support it? But you supported impeaching Clinton for lying about sex? Wow.

bush is to dumb to lie, its those people around him who do the bull****ting... he is just guilty of being to stupid to investigate or question what he is told...

And you still wouldn't support it? But you supported impeaching Clinton for lying about sex? Wow.


I never said I wouldn't support it, you just assumed I didn't. My point is that in order for it to work in this case there needs to be no question that Bush lied beyond a reasonable doubt just as there was no question Clinton got a hummer. If this criterion is met then i'd fully support his impeachment.

I also went a little further to say that even if the Dems/Libs and the American people don't dig up anything on their 2nd attempt, then it really doesn't make too much difference because the seed has already been planted into the minds of those that want to believe a conspiracy.

bush is to dumb to lie, its those people around him who do the bull****ting... he is just guilty of being to stupid to investigate or question what he is told...

Maybe so...

If anything is found by the Senate Intelligence Committee to support this then Bush will still go down as he's the figurehead and rightfully so.

All the Democrats anxiously awaiting in line to hit the Bush pinata is exactly the problem. We already have one detailed report the Dems demanded that suggested poor national and international intelligence was to blame, nothing more.


How ironic that a republican that was proably for impeaching Clinton is saying this.


So are they going to the pull a hat trick on the intelligence Bush received aside from Congress (which he does receive from the CIA)? Maybe so which could possibly carry an impeachment... But if they don't it doesn't matter anyway because so many people will be convinced despite the surfacing of another report that clears his name based on poor intelligence gathering. Hell, they already do! Meanwhile, the Dems will have another 30 months to turn another fiasco into the partisan issue they crave.

How conviently you forget what the people in his staff had written in the past. It was no secret that they all wanted to go to Iraq, they just needed a excuse. How the hell you deny this is beyond me and quite amusing. ****, Jr wanted to get Saddam because Saddam went after his poor old man. And don't you dare talk about the Dem's wanted to make this a partisan issue. If anything the person who divide this country after it being united is Bush. Look what happened when Dem's went along with the Republicans. I can't believe you are trying to act like the Dem's are the bad guys here. The people that lied and obviously did anything possible to go to war are Bush and company. Oh but wait Clinton got a BJ he is much worse than Bush. After all Bush brought back morals to the white house!! :rolleyes:

I also went a little further to say that even if the Dems/Libs and the American people don't dig up anything on their 2nd attempt, then it really doesn't make too much difference because the seed has already been planted into the minds of those that want to believe a conspiracy.

It isn't a conspiracy go read up on what Rove and the rest of them wrote about Iraq and the middle east. And how to handle that area. Then come back to us and say you still don't doubt that they tried to come up with any excuse to go to war.

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

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 nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; 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.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

This latest revelation means that at the time Bush justified the commencement of war against Iraq consistent with what was required under Public Law 107-243, he certified things not in evidence, and made claims to Congress (Saddam’s active operation of a WMD program and Saddam’s assistance to Al Qaeda) that he, Cheney, and Rummy already knew were false.

He lied to Congress to start the war. And now 53% of the American public says that if it is clear that Bush lied, they would support Congress considering impeachment proceedings against the president.

That may be why the Democrats just now made their stand this week. They have new evidence that Bush lied to Congress, and that the March 18, 2003 determination was faulty, and that Bush knew it was based on fabricators, faked documents, and doctored intelligence.

There would have to be indisputable information suggesting that Bush did lie. This would include any and all sources of legitimate intelligence painting a different picture.


Report warned Bush administration their Al-Qaeda source was of doubtful credibility (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.ready.html?ei=5094&en=0d091794b0c89f27&hp=&ex=1131339600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

<snip> As an official intelligence report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, the document would have circulated widely within the government, and it would have been available to the C.I.A., the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies. It remains unclear whether the D.I.A. document was provided to the Senate panel.

In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place.
“It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,’’ the February 2002 report said. “Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.’’

Mr. Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Mr. Libi for his speech to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing “the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.’’

At the time of Mr. Powell’s speech, an unclassified statement by the C.I.A. described the reporting, now known to have been from Mr. Libi, as “credible.’’ But Mr. Levin said he had learned that a classified C.I.A. assessment at the time stated “the source was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.’’ </snip>

so we are bad guys for liberating a country? and fighting against terrorism?

either donkey or elephant, we would have had to go in there sometime... dont deny it

so we are bad guys for liberating a country? and fighting against terrorism?

either donkey or elephant, we would have had to go in there sometime... dont deny it

I don't think so. I believe that the choice of Iraq was more or less arbitrary. Less because it was in the same theatre as Afghanistan.

A couple of points of clarification:

We didn't "liberate" Iraq. We changed the leadership from a secular totalitarian regime to a religious fundamentalist regime.

Iraq wasn't about terrorism. There were no substantial ties between Iraq and the terrorist organizations that threaten the United States.

My posted link (http://www.i-club.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268818&postcount=17) shows demonstrable evidence that the statements this administration made regarding Iraq and terrorism had previously been debunked.

We didn't "liberate" Iraq. We changed the leadership from a secular totalitarian regime to a religious fundamentalist regime.


i beleive that we did, dictatorship never works

& while were on bush, who came up with " bush hates black people"?

How ironic that a republican that was proably for impeaching Clinton is saying this.

I was because he lied under oath. And if a worthwhile case can be made against Bush then I'll support his impeachment as well. You guys make it seem like I root for Republicans like a crazed sports fan with thousands of dollars on the Super Bowl.
You post all these weak articles but probably have never once took the time to read the official report like I did over many days on the crapper (visualize haha).

The problem is all the evidence doesn't stack up well enough at this point for an impeachment but rather a self-induced resignation at the VERY most.

A couple years ago it was the intelligence community that presented a pretty picture to Congress which influenced their vote to go to Iraq (which we all know passed). Bush is not mentioned in the linked reports I posted below. The problem came up after the fact hardly anything in Iraq stacked up to what they were told in the initial intelligence briefings. Then they had to second guess the intelligence community hence this report.

NOW the current problem could be in the intelligence Bush was given that Congress never saw (which he does receive). You're sadly mistaken if you think the people presenting the intelligence to Bush back then didn't back up their intelligence in the same confident fashion as they did when presenting it to Congress. This is what I believe happened. IF it is not interpreted this way in the coming report from the Senate Intelligence Committee and Bush is at fault aside from having poor intelligence, then i'll undoubtedly support his impeachment and resignation.

Here are the reports for you guys: http://intelligence.senate.gov/ Feel free to down load both of them and read them both as well.

I know it's been said, but Clinton lied about getting BJs in the WH. If Bush did indeed lie, his lie brought our nation into a new era of pre-emptive strike mentality in our approach to international disputes.

If it was proven that he lied I think a lot of people would support impeachment, I know I would. But I really don't want to see us go down that road unless it is proven with hard facts because what they have now just doesn't equal hard facts. As much as I think he knew there is not enough hard evidence.

BTW - How does the Clinton thing even come up in an argument like this? If they both lied (hypothetically for Bush) then Bushy's lie is 100000000000000000 x worse than what Clinton did. Unless you're a radical right wing christian :rolleyes:

If he lied to the extent that it jeopardized America as a whole then yes. All President's lie, all gov't officials lie. It's the nature of the beast.

i beleive that we did, dictatorship never works

& while were on bush, who came up with " bush hates black people"?

Considering that over half the Iraqi population has less freedom now than they did under Hussein, I think a majority (or at least a significant plurality)of Iraqis disagree with you. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html)

a new era of pre-emptive strike ... approach to international disputes.


And boy I bet you Bush supporters are looking forward to when the rest of the world adopts this policy- good times ahead!

ok, so us left wing democrats love to take shots at President Bush, but do you conservatives actually think he is doing a good job?

ok, so us left wing democrats love to take shots at President Bush, but do you conservatives actually think he is doing a good job?

I'm on the conservative side and I'd say it's hard to tell. No one can deny that Bush has been dealt a tough deck of cards in the whole scheme of things. From a crashing tech industry (economy) to 9/11 to the War on Terror to Katrina to outrageous soaring energy costs. It's a tough time to be President and I think all of you can agree with that. That being said I'm not sure anyone else could have done exponentially better. I def. think a lot of things should be done differently and things can always be better but given the circumstances, I can't hold a lot against him.

I know it's been said, but Clinton lied about getting BJs in the WH. If Bush did indeed lie, his lie brought our nation into a new era of pre-emptive strike mentality in our approach to international disputes.

B.S.! The pre-emptive strike "mentality" blame you speak belongs to JFK, it was a right he held in regards to Cuba during the missle crisis in 1962. A right he told the world in a televised speech.

And boy I bet you Bush supporters are looking forward to when the rest of the world adopts this policy- good times ahead!

You mean like when Israel save their own skin? When they were faced with Nasser's threat to block oil from passing through the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel struck on June 5, 1967, destroying the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian air forces, and occupying Gaza, Sinai, the West Bank and Golan in six days?

I'm on the conservative side and I'd say it's hard to tell. No one can deny that Bush has been dealt a tough deck of cards in the whole scheme of things. From a crashing tech industry (economy) to 9/11 to the War on Terror to Katrina to outrageous soaring energy costs. It's a tough time to be President and I think all of you can agree with that. That being said I'm not sure anyone else could have done exponentially better. I def. think a lot of things should be done differently and things can always be better but given the circumstances, I can't hold a lot against him.
I agree with you that he has had a pretty tough couple of terms in presidency, with 9/11, hurricane Katrina, etc.....and i'm on the liberal side of the argument.....wonder what it would have been like if Gore or Kerry had won......probably not much better.

I agree with you that he has had a pretty tough couple of terms in presidency, with 9/11, hurricane Katrina, etc.....and i'm on the liberal side of the argument.....wonder what it would have been like if Gore or Kerry had won......probably not much better.

My sentiments exactly, Kerry would have probably used his infamous "plan" that we were all so interested in hearing. Being totally honest, I think Gore would have eaten cyanide pills in the Oval office. He was even less competent than Bush and that's saying a lot.

My sentiments exactly, Kerry would have probably used his infamous "plan" that we were all so interested in hearing. Being totally honest, I think Gore would have eaten cyanide pills in the Oval office. He was even less competent than Bush and that's saying a lot.
hahahahaha, he probably would've eaten cyanide pills and it still wouldn't have changed the expression on his face!

So Bush has had a rough go at it, and neither Gore or Kerry would have a done a better job, but I still believe that Bush deserves to be impeached if he knowingly waged war without evidence of wmd's. I believe he knew and was informed that it was unlikely that Iraq had wmd's, but I don't believe the evidence is there to support my beliefs, and even if the evidence is there they will find a way to spin it and blame it on someone else.

The blame will never get to the president, someone else or some other agency will be the "fall guy".

hahahahaha, he probably would've eaten cyanide pills and it still wouldn't have changed the expression on his face!

OMG You went there!!!!!!!! My day is complete.

hahahahaha, he probably would've eaten cyanide pills and it still wouldn't have changed the expression on his face!

:rotfl: Quite possibly the funniest thing I have heard evAr!!!

hahahahaha, he probably would've eaten cyanide pills and it still wouldn't have changed the expression on his face!

So Bush has had a rough go at it, and neither Gore or Kerry would have a done a better job, but I still believe that Bush deserves to be impeached if he knowingly waged war without evidence of wmd's. I believe he knew and was informed that it was unlikely that Iraq had wmd's, but I don't believe the evidence is there to support my beliefs, and even if the evidence is there they will find a way to spin it and blame it on someone else.

The blame will never get to the president, someone else or some other agency will be the "fall guy".

The whole report was misleading. Bush gets information from many organizations just as every President before him does. You could say that because Clinton didn't do enough reconaissance in Mogadishu 18 Rangers were killed. You could say that had Roosevelt developed a better plan more than 60% of the attacking force would have survived D-Day. All that is irrelevant though. It's a system of facilitation. The President makes decisions based of what he's given.

I'm not a very political person, I don't even watch the news, but I have a hard time being "ok" with a puppet as a president. The guy doesn't even make his own decisions, it's like he's not running the country, his advisors are. And he also seems more concerned with making money than the well being of the country. The New Orleans disaster was actually predicted about 5 years ago but because of the money that comes in down there he didn't want to do anything about it. A butt-load of environmentalist told him fact after fact about how New Orleans is like a bowl and that a hurricane will just wipe it off the face of the earth. IGNORED!! I hate that bastard.

Also, Family Guy had a pretty funny Bush reference this week.

I'm not a very political person, I don't even watch the news, but I have a hard time being "ok" with a puppet as a president. The guy doesn't even make his own decisions, it's like he's not running the country, his advisors are. And he also seems more concerned with making money than the well being of the country. The New Orleans disaster was actually predicted about 5 years ago but because of the money that comes in down there he didn't want to do anything about it. A butt-load of environmentalist told him fact after fact about how New Orleans is like a bowl and that a hurricane will just wipe it off the face of the earth. IGNORED!! I hate that bastard.

Actually, what you just said is so far from the truth it's laughable. The gov't gave New Orleans millions in aid to restore both the wet lands (a storm surge buffer) and the levies. Instead, amoral politicans choose to use the money elsewhere. Like building a fountain on Lake Pontratrain and started contracts to build a new NFL stadium for the Saints. Those are the facts. The distaster was totally the fault of leaders local to the Katrina incident. The levies are NOT a federal program. They are in the state's control and subsidized by the countries tax payer dollars.

Actually, what you just said is so far from the truth it's laughable. The gov't gave New Orleans millions in aid to restore both the wet lands (a storm surge buffer) and the levies. Instead, amoral politicans choose to use the money elsewhere.

You are absolutely incorrect.


<snip>When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. (Much of the research here is from Nexis, which is why some articles aren't linked.)

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to this Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness:

The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes.

The Lake Pontchartrain project is slated to receive $3.9 million in the president's 2005 budget. Naomi said about $20 million is needed.<snip>

New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

So you say he never lied? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? I think that counts. As much as I would love to see the man gone, who else would you want in there right now? No one I can think of even though Bush is a douche.

So you say he never lied? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? I think that counts. As much as I would love to see the man gone, who else would you want in there right now? No one I can think of even though Bush is a douche.
If you knew the police were coming to raid your house for the meht lab that's in your basement, what would you do with the stuff? Leave it there or hide it? Maybe at a friend's house or elsewhere.

If you knew the police were coming to raid your house for the meht lab that's in your basement, what would you do with the stuff? Leave it there or hide it? Maybe at a friend's house or elsewhere.
Come on now....we had scads of satelite surveilance, and we knew that the WMDs were "in tikrit, and to the north, and the south, and the east, and the west" (that lying bastard, Rumsfeld) If Hussein had moved the weapons in the weeks leading up to the war, we would know where he moved them to.

You are absolutely incorrect.


<snip>When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. (Much of the research here is from Nexis, which is why some articles aren't linked.)

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to this Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness:

The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes.

The Lake Pontchartrain project is slated to receive $3.9 million in the president's 2005 budget. Naomi said about $20 million is needed.<snip>

New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

First off, that is the most bias news article you could have possibly posted since the Times-Picayune would NEVER criticize local officials because they would lose their jobs the same day. You never hear criticism in New Orleans on anything governmental which is probably why things are the way they are. The gov't was giving N.O. funds even if they were less significant but either way that is not the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter is that New Orleans officials didn't use the money they already had into making the levies better. The used in on the Pontratrain Fountain, the River Walk and getting contracts for a new NFL stadium. If you're going to say that's not being irresponsible than I'll be hard pressed to convince you otherwise. It is a state's responsiblity to protect itself from these things, otherwise lets do away with 50 different quarters and state lines and just be one big happy federal family.

Come on now....we had scads of satelite surveilance, and we knew that the WMDs were "in tikrit, and to the north, and the south, and the east, and the west" (that lying bastard, Rumsfeld) If Hussein had moved the weapons in the weeks leading up to the war, we would know where he moved them to.

Perhaps I should reference the first Desert Storm to you when Saddam moved an entire Armor Regiment without our knowing about it by spacing his movements depending upon satellite coverage. Him doing this caused the largest Armor engagement since WWII and caused the most casualties in the war (even though it was a smaller number they are significant). If he wanted to hide those weapons he could have done it. Satellites are not the end-all confirmation. They help but the eyes in the sky do move.

Come on now....we had scads of satelite surveilance, and we knew that the WMDs were "in tikrit, and to the north, and the south, and the east, and the west" (that lying bastard, Rumsfeld) If Hussein had moved the weapons in the weeks leading up to the war, we would know where he moved them to.
We can see underground?

We can see underground?

Actually we can, and I believe there was a thread on this topic in the run-up to the war in the early days of this forum but I can't remember what it was. But again I believe that technology (like 1Regu pointed out) needs to be directed somewheres.

Gotta know where to look

Actually we can, and I believe there was a thread on this topic in the run-up to the war in the early days of this forum but I can't remember what it was. But again I believe that technology (like 1Regu pointed out) needs to be directed somewheres.

Gotta know where to look
I didn't know that we could. I bet the extent to which we can is very limited. But you're right we do need to know where to look, when to look, etc.

Actually we can, and I believe there was a thread on this topic in the run-up to the war in the early days of this forum but I can't remember what it was. But again I believe that technology (like 1Regu pointed out) needs to be directed somewheres.

Gotta know where to look

We can only see with either thermal optics (down to the point where temp. signature is still evident which could be 5 feet or 100) and the other is by electronic signature. If there is activity underground there's a good chance we'll know about it. It may be a coal mine and it could be a anthrax lab. We'd just know someone's down there. We can also sense movement with laser sizmagraph which just registers movement. SF units are given local units to detect troop movements which are highly effective. When they detect movement they call an airstike/artillery on "the piece".

5-100 ft. that's a pretty large range.

5-100 ft. that's a pretty large range.

Yup, depends on the density of what it's looking through and what kinds of heat emitting targets its searching for. If it's looking for a nuclear reactor buried under 100 ft. of sand that be easy to see. Finding a person hiding in a cave of composite rock form would be a much more difficult task (hint hint Afganistan). You can also search for electrical signals (how we're looking for Bin Laden). For instance, when you use a cell phone it gives off an electron signature specific only to it. Bin Laden's just been smart about screening his calls and using covers and decoys to hide his location. Bastard.

Yup, depends on the density of what it's looking through and what kinds of heat emitting targets its searching for. If it's looking for a nuclear reactor buried under 100 ft. of sand that be easy to see. Finding a person hiding in a cave of composite rock form would be a much more difficult task (hint hint Afganistan). You can also search for electrical signals (how we're looking for Bin Laden). For instance, when you use a cell phone it gives off an electron signature specific only to it. Bin Laden's just been smart about screening his calls and using covers and decoys to hide his location. Bastard.
What about a thick underground concrete bunker? Used for hiding people and weapons? putting off realitively low heat (compared to a reactor)

What about a thick underground concrete bunker? Used for hiding people and weapons? putting off realitively low heat (compared to a reactor)

Practically invisible.

Practically invisible.
If people on here are willing to accept your credibility, my point is proven.

Practically invisible.

Not for long....

or maybe we are using some of this technology like we did for years with say the SR-71? Who knows!?!?!?!?

http://www.darpa.mil/spo/programs/uf.htm?area=4

Not for long....

or maybe we are using some of this technology like we did for years with say the SR-71? Who knows!?!?!?!?

http://www.darpa.mil/spo/programs/uf.htm?area=4
Hopefully this is put into affect pretty quick.

Hopefully this is put into affect pretty quick.

I would bet that something like this is already in effect even if it is a somewhat limited scale.

Not for long....

or maybe we are using some of this technology like we did for years with say the SR-71? Who knows!?!?!?!?

http://www.darpa.mil/spo/programs/uf.htm?area=4


Yeah, those two things linked at the bottom of the page I had mentioned just in exponentially less detail. We do have bunker busters and MOABs which leave pretty much any military facility vulnerable. The trouble is finding them. People will always be able to hide regardless of what technology comes up. It's possible to isolate thermal and electronic fields underground just as we do it in the air with the F-117 and the newer F-22 Raptor (air is a much harder medium for concealment). The passive system is amazing though. The unmanned aerial surviellance units can detech a heart beat from miles away. This was used thorougly in Afghanistan when Taliban fighters would try and wait for hours in the mountains for a passing patrol. Instead the patrols would have the eye in the sky look out in front of them for potential threats so they could go quiet or call in arty./magic dragon strikes.

Yeah, those two things linked at the bottom of the page I had mentioned just in exponentially less detail. We do have bunker busters and MOABs which leave pretty much any military facility vulnerable. The trouble is finding them. People will always be able to hide regardless of what technology comes up. It's possible to isolate thermal and electronic fields underground just as we do it in the air with the F-117 and the newer F-22 Raptor (air is a much harder medium for concealment). The passive system is amazing though. The unmanned aerial surviellance units can detech a heart beat from miles away. This was used thorougly in Afghanistan when Taliban fighters would try and wait for hours in the mountains for a passing patrol. Instead the patrols would have the eye in the sky look out in front of them for potential threats so they could go quiet or call in arty./magic dragon strikes.

That is wicked.....

I would bet that something like this is already in effect even if it is a somewhat limited scale.
Oh def. My physics teacher in high school (02-'03) was a former SR-71 pilot and told us, of what he could, some of the spy technology he could.

That is wicked.....

Yup, I've heard cases of SF guys sneaking up on waiting fighers, stabbing them to death and leaving their calling cards on their dead bodies. The enemy has no idea there is someone dead set on killing them and that they know exactly where they are laying, what type of cigarette they may be smoking and how many rounds are in their magazine. It's a sick technology and literally leaves people nowhere to hide if the surveillance is available at the time.

And for the record, the calling cards are things each group prints up like playing cards or business cards. They leave their ID and a sick comment or something on them to mess with the enemies head. Psychological warfare is a ****.

By Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET Sept. 14, 2005

MSNBC TRANSCRIPT
"The unveiling of the Mardi Gras Fountain was celebrated this year in typical New Orleans style. The cost of $2.4 million was paid by the Orleans Levee Board, the state agency whose main job is to protect the levees surrounding New Orleans -- the same levees that failed after Katrina hit.

"They misspent the money," says Billy Nungesser, a former top Republican official who was briefly president of the Levee Board. "Any dollar they wasted was a dollar that could have went in the levees."

Nungesser says he lost his job because he targeted wasteful spending.

"A cesspool of politics, that’s all it was," says Nungesser. "[Its purpose was to] provide jobs for people."

In fact, NBC News has uncovered a pattern of what critics call questionable spending practices by the Levee Board -- a board which, at one point, was accused by a state inspector general of "a long-standing and continuing disregard of the public interest."

Beyond the fountain, there's the $15 million spent on two overpasses that helped gamblers get to Bally's riverboat casino. Critics tried and failed to put some of that money into flood protection.

There was also $45,000 for private investigators to dig up dirt on radio host and board critic Robert Namer.

"They hired a private eye for nine months to find something to make me look wacko, to make me look crazy or bad." says Namer. "They couldn’t find anything."

Namer sued and the board then spent another $45,000 to settle.

Critics charge, for years, the board has paid more attention to marinas, gambling and business than to maintaining the levees. As an example: of 11 construction projects now on the board's Web site, only two are related to flood control.[2]

"I assure you," says Levee Board President Jim Huey, "that you will find that all of our money was appropriately expended."

Huey says money for the levees comes from a different account than money for business activities and that part of the board’s job is providing recreational opportunities.

And despite the catastrophic flooding, Huey says, "As far as the overall flood protection system, it's intact, it's there today, it worked. In 239 miles of levees, 152 floodgates, and canals throughout this entire city, there was only two areas."

But those two critical areas were major canals and their collapse contributed to hundreds of deaths and widespread destruction.

Lisa Myers is NBC’s senior investigative correspondent."

Pundita notes that Jim Huey, the levee board's president, doesn't mention that the levees are now so weakened they can be breached by even a tropical storm surge. And according to an earlier reports, the levees were breached in at least seven places; the two breaches mentioned by Huey were only the major ones.

Nor does Mr. Huey volunteer the information that in addition to levees, floodgates and canals there are floodwalls. It is on the question of the New Orleans floodwalls that much hangs.

Yup, I've heard cases of SF guys sneaking up on waiting fighers, stabbing them to death and leaving their calling cards on their dead bodies. The enemy has no idea there is someone dead set on killing them and that they know exactly where they are laying, what type of cigarette they may be smoking and how many rounds are in their magazine. It's a sick technology and literally leaves people nowhere to hide if the surveillance is available at the time.

And for the record, the calling cards are things each group prints up like playing cards or business cards. They leave their ID and a sick comment or something on them to mess with the enemies head. Psychological warfare is a ****.


mmmm.......death cards

mmmm.......death cards

Yup, and thanks for pointing out that article. Considering the fact that it would have taken about $50,000 to prevent the breaks in the areas they happened this is totally the fault of the local officials. Thanks for looking at the facts and not falling victim to the typical administration bashing. Put the criticism where it's due.

The pre-emptive strike "mentality" blame you speak belongs to JFK, it was a right he held in regards to Cuba during the missle crisis in 1962. A right he told the world in a televised speech.

You seem like a smart enough guy, but this is the most e-tarded sentence I have read in awhile.

I digress... JFKs situation with Cuba was entirely different. We were in the middle of the Cold War and the Soviets were stockpiling WMDs right off our shore on the island of Cuba. Their action was both aggressive and real. We had confirmed satellite proof of their existence. The difference? Kennedy used the pressure of intl politics and the threat of retaliation. He did not start a war.

A far better example would have been the Bay of Pigs disaster in '61. We tried to sneak down there and put the whoopin on the Commie Cubans, but ended up getting our a$$es handed to us.

You seem like a smart enough guy, but this is the most e-tarded sentence I have read in awhile.

I digress... JFKs situation with Cuba was entirely different. We were in the middle of the Cold War and the Soviets were stockpiling WMDs right off our shore on the island of Cuba. Their action was both aggressive and real. We had confirmed satellite proof of their existence. The difference? Kennedy used the pressure of intl politics and the threat of retaliation. He did not start a war.

A far better example would have been the Bay of Pigs disaster in '61. We tried to sneak down there and put the whoopin on the Commie Cubans, but ended up getting our a$$es handed to us.

We're in the middle of the War on Terrorism because WE WERE ATTACKED and the Al Qaeda supporting insurgents/rebels/Taliban are attempting to attain WMDs from nations who support them and have or have had access to them. The President as well as the American public were presented with "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq and VOTED to attack them as a "pre-emptive measure". Entirely different? Not in my book.

We're in the middle of the War on Terrorism because WE WERE ATTACKED and the Al Qaeda supporting insurgents/rebels/Taliban are attempting to attain WMDs from nations who support them...

Wow, you're still clinging to that nonsense? Ties between Al-Queda and Saddam? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our CIA had much stronger ties with both respective parties than they had with one another.

Before we invaded Iraq most recently, Saddam had long held a position to not deal with religious extremists, as those fringe parties threatened his own totalitarian rule.

Saddam was a sick bastard, but his actions did not merit in any way a pre-emptive strike against his sovereign nation.

Saddam was a sick bastard, but his actions did not merit in any way a pre-emptive strike against his sovereign nation.


Alright, well lets assume for a second that there was 100% postively, absolutely no possible way for him to have even had the potential to possess WMDs. He was still a sick bastard that used submissive, terror rule over his people and committed genocide on a scale rarely uncovered. Hitler was a sick bastard too.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is a stretch and makes you lose a considerable amount of credibilty. The United States assisted one of the most ruthless murderers into power: Augusto Pinochet, ex-dictator of Chile. He came close to Hitler's ruthlessness.

Like I said, Saddam was a sick bastard. That doesnt justify a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is a stretch and makes you lose a considerable amount of credibilty. The United States assisted one of the most ruthless murderers into power: Augusto Pinochet, ex-dictator of Chile. He came close to Hitler's ruthlessness.

Like I said, Saddam was a sick bastard. That doesnt justify a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation.

If you can't see a comparision between the two then I think it says something about your credibilty so touche to that. You do realize that just a body count and a few well established death camps was all that seperated them right? Had Saddam built a death camp instead of trenches as his means of murder other than a body count what would have been different. He even went as far as to skip the camp and just gas whole cities outright. Getting the picture.

a body count and a few well established death camps was all that seperated them...

I understand where you are coming from, but only in so far as the fact that both men were and are ruthless dictators.

Hitler attempted to wipe out an entire ethnicity. He murdered over 6,000,000 Jews and wouldnt have stopped there.

When Bush and his chronies were trying to stir up anti-Saddam sentiment in the US, myriad Jewish groups vehemently objected to the comparison of Saddam to Hitler.