Who was the better american president: Clinton or Bush?

[Ensign Riles]

Originally Posted by Big {Daddy}

I'm surprised Bush Sr. hasn't got more votes.

I almost feel sorry for him and how Reagen pretty much screwed up anything postive he did or could have done.

[_-|Darkstar|Vengence|-_]

first and foremost, clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped. even more importantly, he could've saved countless numbers of american lives by killing Osama when delivered so many chances on a silver platter. Second, bush Jr. is a retard. Proof: he once said on live TV in the 2004 debate "I've heard there are rumors on the Internets..." internetS?! uh... theres only one, smartass! also, "they hate us for our freedom" well than why hasn't Al Quedia attacked Amsterdam?! and finally, "We're going to war tiwh Iraq because U.S. Intelligence has determined that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction" ok... the only weapons we found (which were a handful, at best) could NEVER reach the U.S. from Iraq! They had NOT A SINGLE MISSILE with that kind of range!!! See why we elect rednecks? because otherwise, who would defend this country (*from attacks that aren't coming*)

[USMA2010]

So he is not glib of tounge, I'm fine with that.

They have not attacked Amsterdam for a few reasons. One, it would do nothing for their cause. Two, Amsterdam has lots of Muslims. Hell, all of Holland has lots of Muslims.

The US soldiers found several mobile chemical weapons labs as well as botchulism toxins and enough gear to protect the Iraqi army for a total chemical or biological war.

The fear was Saddam would either use his weapons against Israel or American bases in Saudi Araba. His al-Hussein missiles, modified SCUDs, could reach those targets with ease. Another fear was that Saddam would sell weapons to Syria, Iran, or some other terrorist state who would sell those weapons to al Qaeda.

[Mast3rofPuppets]

Originally Posted by USMA2010

The US soldiers found several mobile chemical weapons labs as well as botchulism toxins and enough gear to protect the Iraqi army for a total chemical or biological war.

Source please.

[Aeroflot]

Originally Posted by USMA2010

The US soldiers found several mobile chemical weapons labs as well as botchulism toxins and enough gear to protect the Iraqi army for a total chemical or biological war.

I heard about a chemical weapons lab, but nothing about protective gear.

I also heard about mortars with poisonous chemicals inside the projectiles.

[USMA2010]

http://english.people.com.cn/200303/...1_114284.shtml

[Aeroflot]

Well, it's not exactly enough to cover the entire Iraqi army. It looks like those suits were only for training and/or special units.

[Mast3rofPuppets]

Originally Posted by USMA2010

http://english.people.com.cn/200303/...1_114284.shtml

Umm, your point is? Every respectable army in the world has that. IIRC every soldier in the Swedish army has to go through atleast some basic NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) training.

Originally Posted by from article

But troops did find items including a Geiger counter, gas masks and nerve gas simulators, which British officers said indicated that Iraqi troops were being trained to deal with the possibility of chemical or nuclear warfare.

Swedish soldiers (and probably most other countries soldiers) are also beeing trained to deal with the possibility of chemical or nuclear warfare.

It's laughable that they even put that in the news.

PS. Where's that mobile chemical weapons labs you were talking about?

[USMA2010]

That gear was being given out before the invasion, including drugs used to counter the effects of nerve attacking gas.

Does Iraq seem like the kind of place that anyone would launch a nuclear weapon at? Do you really think American or British soldiers would use chemical or biological weapons against the Iraqis?

One of the mobile labs:


155mm artillery shells ready to fire mustard gas.


So, you were saying...

[Mast3rofPuppets]

Originally Posted by USMA2010

That gear was being given out before the invasion, including drugs used to counter the effects of nerve attacking gas.
Does Iraq seem like the kind of place that anyone would launch a nuclear weapon at? Do you really think American or British soldiers would use chemical or biological weapons against the Iraqis?

I don't have time to dig up a quote ATM, but I'm pretty sure Bush said something in the lines of that he hadn't excluded the option of using nuclear weapons against Iraq before the invasion.

One of the mobile labs:

155mm artillery shells ready to fire mustard gas.

So, you were saying...

First: I want a better source than a picture of a random truck.

Second: Those arty shells doesn't exactly look brand new... That's probably just some leftovers from '88. Besides it doesn't really look like Saddam had an intent to use them, I mean, look at the condition they're in!

Seriously though USMA, do you really think Bush invaded Iraq for some rusty mustardgas shells?