Cindy Sheehan: "Canada out of Afghanistan!"

Yup, the ole coot is at it again.

Looks like she's saying more ridiculous things in the hope she'll get some press time: Globe and Mail Story

Some fun bits:

Quote:

---

Canadian soldiers have no business being in Afghanistan and their presence there merely enables the United States to carry on its "illegal and immoral" war in Iraq, prominent U.S. anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said yesterday.

"I believe my country shouldn't be in Afghanistan anyway," Ms. Sheehan said at a news conference on Parliament Hill. "It's never about spreading freedom or democracy or making the world safe, it's about lining the war profiteers' pockets."

---

Quote:

---

Ms. Sheehan also fired broadsides at the UN-backed international mission in Afghanistan.

"My country supported Osama bin Laden in the fight against Russia," she said.

---

Translation: I am a cretin.

Quote:

---

"And now they go in and tear down that country. It's back in the hands of the drug lords, it's producing more opium than ever, and it's not safe. There's not any rebuilding going on, because it's being occupied by occupying forces."

---

So...its in the hands of the Taliban, but no rebuilding is going on because of 'occupying forces' who occupy the country? Which one is it?

They also encourage our volunteer soldiers to desert:

Quote:

---

The activists conceded that current war resisters are different from those in the Vietnam era because they volunteered to serve, rather than being drafted.

However, Ms. Sheehan said, the soldiers are within their rights to desert because many are "lied to" by U.S. military recruiters who tell them they won't have to fight in Iraq. "My son was an honourable, honest person lied to by his recruiter," she said.

---

If I recall correctly, her son signed up for another tour after completing his first one.

Crazed Rabbit
P.S. Yes, I admit Mrs. Sheehan is an all too convenient (and becoming more so) whacking post for conservatives. But hey, what else do we do in here? :2thumbsup:

Maybe if we all stop caring about what she says, it won't matter. Just a thought. You are only spreading this, can you imagine if we cared and gave press time to every person in the US that was against or for the war? :dizzy2:

i agree with the prince and have to ask, who the hell gave her press time in the first place.

anyway her son probably joined the army to get away from her, she just comes off as a domineering and control freak bitch to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

i agree with the prince and have to ask, who the hell gave her press time in the first place.

---

Well when she was the "sympathetic" anti war/bush mom the media and dems did. Now that she has made a fool of herself they are unable to shut her up. She is an embarassment that they themselves created and is now doing them damage.

I think the line that did it for me was during Katrina when she called for the guard to "pull out" of New Orleans and end the occupation there.:juggle2:

(Now, now. We don't need to hear that - Beirut)

Oh goody. I thought the press finally stopped covering her. I think they should air her views all of the time.

My favorite line wwas when she apologized to the Venezuelan president in Venezuela at some anti-America rally for American imperialism.

I'm sure her son would be proud.

She is no whacking post, IMO. Instead, I see her as a nut who helps the conservative cause. I think she might secretly be on the RNC payroll. :laugh4:

I like how the media first portrayed this as Bush's refusal to speak with her, rather than Bush's refusal to speak with her again. (He met with her once shortly after the death of her son, remember?) The media conveniently forgets to include that part.

Quote:

---

So...its in the hands of the Taliban, but no rebuilding is going on because of 'occupying forces' who occupy the country? Which one is it?

---

Err... the Taliban weren't drug lords. Murderers, oppressors and islamofascist maniacs yes, but not drug lords. In fact, they were the only one who managed to effectively fight drug production in Afghanistan. But other than that, yes the woman is a shame.

Nah, she is not a whacko. She is quite rational: her son died in war, the reasons for going to war were questionable, so she has an axe to grind with those responsible.

So far so good. She is overplaying her hand, and damaging her case, with Chavez, Katrina and now Afghanistan though.

The scale of 9/11 and the closesness of AQ and the Taliban made it nothing short of an open declaration of war by the Taliban against America. Arguments that the Taliban and OBL were previously supported by America, or that support for the war in Afghanistan enables the war in Iraq, whether true or false, fade to insignificance in that light.

Didn't someone shoot her yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Nah, she is not a whacko. She is quite rational: her son died in war, the reasons for going to war were questionable, so she has an axe to grind with those responsible.
.

---

Understandable, IF her son did not volunteer for military service. No one forced him to pick up that rifle...

Aye, but what war did her son volunteer to? A war fought to preserve American lives in the face of imminent danger by WMD? Or a war that was started for ulterior reasons and sold on false grounds?

One's appreciation of miss Sheehan's cause depends a good deal on those questions. Was her son misled?

I do wish she wouldn't bring up her son every time though. She can not indefinitely, on each and every subject, claim to be his spokeswoman. Ironically, that would, after his physical death, mean the demise of him as an independent personality too. This also hints at what you rightfully pointed out too.

Quote:

---

Didn't someone shoot her yet?

---

No, because she lives in America, where people are free to voice their opinion with respect for their life and liberty. Deal with it or move to North Korea.
America, love it or leave it and all that. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Aye, but what war did her son volunteer to? A war fought to preserve American lives in the face of imminent danger by WMD? Or a war that was started for ulterior reasons and sold on false grounds?

One's appreciation of miss Sheehan's cause depends a good deal on those questions. Was her son misled?

---

When you join the military, you do not get to chose which wars you want to fight in and which ones you don't. That isn't an option. Her son knew full well that he was at the wim of his Commander and Cheif to be sent where ever he thought necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Aye, but what war did her son volunteer to? A war fought to preserve American lives in the face of imminent danger by WMD? Or a war that was started for ulterior reasons and sold on false grounds?

One's appreciation of miss Sheehan's cause depends a good deal on those questions. Was her son misled?

I do wish she wouldn't bring up her son every time though. She can not indefinitely, on each and every subject, claim to be his spokeswoman. Ironically, that would, after his physical death, mean the demise of him as an independent personality too. This also hints at what you rightfully pointed out too.


No, because she lives in America, where people are free to voice their opinion with respect for their life and liberty. Deal with it or move to North Korea.
America, love it or leave it and all that. :balloon2:

---

But her opinion is treasonous. God, where's McCarthy when you need him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yup, the ole coot is at it again.

Looks like she's saying more ridiculous things in the hope she'll get some press time: Globe and Mail Story

Some fun bits:



Translation: I am a cretin.

So...its in the hands of the Taliban, but no rebuilding is going on because of 'occupying forces' who occupy the country? Which one is it?

They also encourage our volunteer soldiers to desert:

If I recall correctly, her son signed up for another tour after completing his first one.

Crazed Rabbit
P.S. Yes, I admit Mrs. Sheehan is an all too convenient (and becoming more so) whacking post for conservatives. But hey, what else do we do in here? :2thumbsup:

---

She is a Embrassment to Our Country and to the US Troops,No Questios Asked,Period.
I aslo Agree with Ice.

when you join the Navy,Army,or ay branch of the Mitalry of any Country,you wil lDefend your Country in Peace or War.

For Example

I might want to joni the Army one day.ok. if say,by then,Russia and China USA go to war in a big 3 Way War.I can't pick if I want to be in the War or not. I would Defend my Country,if I died or not.

I swear she should go to Iraq,mabye that should shut her up..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

When you join the military, you do not get to chose which wars you want to fight in and which ones you don't.

---

Indeed, therefore those who send them must use utmost caution, deliberation and their best conscience when commiting them to war. The obligation is mutual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Indeed, therefore those who send them must use utmost caution, deliberation and their best conscience when commiting them to war. The obligation is mutual.

---

Yes, but the mother of a deceased soldier does not to get to use her son's death as an excuse to nag, nag, and NAG. He was there volunterily, end of story.

Aye, but why did he volunteer? To fight a war fought to preserve American lives in the face of imminent danger by WMD? Or to fight a war that was started for ulterior reasons and sold on false grounds?

One's appreciation of miss Sheehan's cause depends a good deal on those questions. Was her son misled when he voluntered?

Meh, we're going round in circles, aren't we? :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Aye, but why did he volunteer? To fight a war fought to preserve American lives in the face of imminent danger by WMD? Or to fight a war that was started for ulterior reasons and sold on false grounds?

One's appreciation of miss Sheehan's cause depends a good deal on those questions. Was her son misled when he voluntered?

Meh, we're going round in circles, aren't we? :balloon2:

---

Yes. It doesn't matter why he joined, the bottem line is he joined. He is a soldier who voluntered in the United States Army. He knew the consquences of his action, he was a big boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

One's appreciation of miss Sheehan's cause depends a good deal on those questions. Was her son misled when he voluntered?

---

I think this is were my belief that he not only volunteered, but reenlisted, comes into play. Even assuming he was misled the first time, he certainly knew what was happening the second time.

Crazed Rabbit

She initially had a valid protest, but she has long since lost any creditablity.

I wonder if her handler's have washed their hands of her?

Who is Cindy Sheehan? Isnt she American? What does Canada have to do with her son dieing? Why do I keep asking questions? Opiums not that bad is it? Why cant we all just get along?

I believe he was on his second tour to Iraq, VOLUNTARILY...

What's wrong with saying "*********" Tree Chopper, I've read worst written by mods in the Backroom.

(If you don't like it, take it up in the Watchtower or appeal it to SG. For now however... - Beirut)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I believe he was on his second tour to Iraq, VOLUNTARILY...

What's wrong with saying "**********" Tree Chopper, I've read worst written by mods in the Backroom.

---

Maybe he was thinking about asking her out for a wood chopping experience while she was up in Canada......:oops:

(Qouted language - Beirut)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Maybe he was thinking about asking her out for a wood chopping experience while she was up in Canada......:oops:

---

I don't think she's the lumberjack type. I'd invision her to be the "chain myself to a tree" type. But if she did, Beirut could do us all a favor and, well you know...:laugh4:
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!! THWACK!!!! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! Timber!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I believe he was on his second tour to Iraq, VOLUNTARILY...

What's wrong with saying "*********" Tree Chopper, I've read worst written by mods in the Backroom.

(If you don't like it, take it up in the Watchtower or appeal it to SG. For now however... - Beirut)

---

Golly gee willikers Wally you're quick. I hope you don't make love this fast, Mrs Sheehan's gonna be very disappointed!!!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Oh goody. I thought the press finally stopped covering her.

---

Your media did. That link is from the Globe and Mail's website. The G'n'B being one of Canada's 2 national newspapers. It's the one that's not a joke/Tory rag.

Anyway, one thing I've always wondered is how did she feel about her son joining the army period? If you just take the way she reacted to her son being killed it gives the impression that she never wanted him in a uniform to begin with.

I've got a question why does Canada care what Cindy Sheehan has to say? And on her son He joined the army cause he wanted too not because he was forced. And going into a war is a chance he took and it just so happened that he was thrown into a war zone and was killed. This ladie probably just wants something to bitch about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

I've got a question why does Canada care what Cindy Sheehan has to say?

---

She called a press conference to tell us to get out of Afghanistan, on parliment hill. That was gonig to get coverage no matter what. Whether we care or not remains to be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

And on her son He joined the army cause he wanted too not because he was forced. And going into a war is a chance he took and it just so happened that he was thrown into a war zone and was killed. This ladie probably just wants something to bitch about.

---

That's not what I asked. What SHE though about her son joining the army PERIOD? That's what I asked.

I sure she didnt want him too. Thats pretty obvious.

Louis I love ya but saying he didnt know what he was getting into was a lie its like becoming a doctor and surprised when you see a cancer patient you know it could happen. Wether the goverment starts a war or not you join the milatary to fight wether it be in Carters adminastration or Bushes. The boy was old enough to know what he was doing and he renlisted. Sheenan has gone from a mother with misplaced grief to a tool in the crap factory known as poltics

We have a similar person in the People's Republic - Rose Gentle. Her son had been in the Royal Highland Fusiliers for a year or so and was sent to Iraq and thence killed. She started saying her son had been under-trained, even after basic army training, infantry training, and several months erstwhile. She has since started to support the Scottish Socialist Party (the most bizarre bunch of odd balls, loonies, and naive crooks)...

It's about politics.

Ms. Sheehan, either as a result of the loss of her son or perhaps prior to that time, became a supporter of the hyper-liberal agenda. She is agressively pursuing photo-ops and situations wherein she can showcase that agenda.

Canada, having recently elected a conservative party government (by a narrowish margin) is a target for potential change. If public sentiment can be swayed more toward the socialist/leftist agenda by any means -- including an assertion that Canada is morally culpable for Iraq (less than popular in Canada) by "enabling" the Bush administration through its participation in Afghanistan -- the current government might be forced from power and a more staunchly leftist government put it.

If this new government feels it needs to make a "statement" to support its new-found voters, it could then initiate a withdrawal of Canadian support and worsen the logistics for the Bush administration.

If this change could be effected quickly enough to have the Canadians throw out the conservatives immediately prior to the US elections in November -- and perhaps turn out more leftist voters in the USA -- Sheehan would be doubly pleased.

Moreover, what have the leftist agenda types or Cindy risked by making the effort? Her reputation as a political leader? :inquisitive: :laugh4: Chance of a backlash and sudden growth of Canadian support for the Iraq conflict.:no:

So, in short, they are risking virtually nothing and have a significant potential "prize" for her efforts. So its not likely to work, what have they lost? Seems pretty shrewd to me.

The traitorous witch (this label chosen as a substitute for moderator-sensitive language and not intended as a slur on practitioners of the ancient craft)!

If that is her plan, it's the most poorly planned political action since the USSR's hardline communist coup in 1991.

The only realistic alterantive to the conservative are the liberals. And they have no leader. Won't until summer. Then the new leader needs to get his face known. Plus no party wants to piss off the electorate with a thrid election in 5 years.

Add to that most people still think Afghanistan was the right action to take and there is no great call for us to pull our troops out. Not like the reaction to Haiti.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I think this is were my belief that he not only volunteered, but reenlisted, comes into play. Even assuming he was misled the first time, he certainly knew what was happening the second time.

---

I never knew that he reenlisted. Even if so, the naive can be misled even when the thruth stares them in the face. He may have been aware of the reality of the every day war in Iraq, but did he grasp the big picture of the war? Did he understand why the war is fought, under which pretence? Does the US army in Iraq allow for a climate in which the rationale for the war is easily debated? Soldiers have a job to do and a war to win, they get and seek more exposure to morale boosting propaganda than to New York Times columnists.

He should however also be considered a person capable of making his own moral decisions. I've stated before that she should show restraint in claiming to speak on his behalf. It depends too much on assumptions about him, and in the end on one's appreciation of the war in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

She initially had a valid protest, but she has long since lost any creditablity.

---

Briefly: the validity of her protest hasn't changed, it is as valid or not as it was on day one.
But yes, unfortunately, she is not the best and brightest anti-war activist out there. To put it mildly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike for the South

Sheenan has gone from a mother with misplaced grief to a tool in the crap factory known as poltics

---

The grief of a mother over a lost child is sacred and above criticism. Her political conclusions are not. Unfortunately, she is not the best and brightest anti-war activist out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SftS

Louis I love ya

---

Love ya too, pumpkin. :knuddel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I never knew that he reenlisted. Even if so, the naive can be misled even when the thruth stares them in the face. He may have been aware of the reality of the every day war in Iraq, but did he grasp the big picture of the war? Did he understand why the war is fought, under which pretence? Does the US army in Iraq allow for a climate in which the rationale for the war is easily debated? Soldiers have a job to do and a war to win, they get and seek more exposure to morale boosting propaganda than to New York Times columnists.

---

You nor anyone else can second guess what the man knew or did not know. We can only judge his actions. He re-enlisted, he returned to Iraq, he volunteered for a mission to go help others, (a mission beyond his normal duty assignment by the way.)

Quote:

---

He should however also be considered a person capable of making his own moral decisions. I've stated before that she should show restraint in claiming to speak on his behalf. It depends too much on assumptions about him, and in the end on one's appreciation of the war in Iraq.

---

And you have hit where she has gone astray.

Quote:

---

Briefly: the validity of her protest hasn't changed, it is as valid or not as it was on day one.
But yes, unfortunately, she is not the best and brightest anti-war activist out there. To put it mildly.

---

You have misread the comment. Try again without assuming that I meantthat her protest is not valid. One can have a valid point, but lack creditability. Mrs Sheehan has lost all creditablity in her protest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You have misread the comment. Try again without assuming that I meant that her protest is not valid.

---

No I didn't misread it, I don't need to try it again and the only thing I assumed is that by 'she initially had a valid protest' you meant that 'she initially had a valid protest'.

Oddly enough, the conclusion that one can have a valid point, but lack creditability was the point of my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No I didn't misread it, I don't need to try it again and the only thing I assumed is that by 'she initially had a valid protest' you meant that 'she initially had a valid protest'.

Oddly enough, the conclusion that one can have a valid point, but lack creditability was the point of my post.

---

It often works better for understanding to be concise with your meaning versus attempting to word smith......:laugh4:

Since my initial post had that very same point - it seems you were arguing just to argue...LOL:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

my initial post had that very same point

---

You are the sole judge of your intention, so I'll gladly take your word for it. However, 'but' indicates an opposition, an 'initially...but' construction a change over time. Small wonder then that your post is understood to mean a change in the validity of her protest by her losing credibility.

So please do spare me your condescending tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You are the sole judge of your intention, so I'll gladly take your word for it. However, 'but' indicates an opposition, an 'initially...but' construction a change over time. Small wonder then that your post is understood to mean a change in the validity of her protest by her losing credibility.

So please do spare me your condescending tone.

---

You first, my dear friend.

If you found the tone condescending - then review how the perception of your own post could be taken....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Aye, but why did he volunteer? To fight a war fought to preserve American lives in the face of imminent danger by WMD? Or to fight a war that was started for ulterior reasons and sold on false grounds?

One's appreciation of miss Sheehan's cause depends a good deal on those questions. Was her son misled when he voluntered?

Meh, we're going round in circles, aren't we? :balloon2:

---

First,my opion is that they Hid WMDs,if you people ever thought of it..



Second,He voulnteer for the Army.



God sake, if you don't want to defend the US,don't join the Army.

but then again,if there was no WMD,tell me if we should have let Saddam in power then?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If you found the tone condescending - then review how the perception of your own post could be taken....

---

It did? Oops, that was not my intention. :oops:


Meh, 'nuff of this. Let us have a beer instead Redleg. :yes:

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

He voulnteer for the Army. God sake, if you don't want to defend the US,don't join the Army.

---

These are important arguments, and I gave my opinion on them elsewhere in this thread.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For example:
'I never knew that he reenlisted. Even if so, the naive can be misled even when the thruth stares them in the face. He may have been aware of the reality of the every day war in Iraq, but did he grasp the big picture of the war? Did he understand why the war is fought, under which pretence? Does the US army in Iraq allow for a climate in which the rationale for the war is easily debated? Soldiers have a job to do and a war to win, they get and seek more exposure to morale boosting propaganda than to New York Times columnists.

He should however also be considered a person capable of making his own moral decisions. I've stated before that she should show restraint in claiming to speak on his behalf. It depends too much on assumptions about him, and in the end on one's appreciation of the war in Iraq.'

Quote:

---

First,my opion is that they Hid WMDs,if you people ever thought of it..

but then again,if there was no WMD,tell me if we should have let Saddam in power then?

---

Chances are that those WMD's would have been found by now.

As to the second point, would you believe that I really struggle with that? I have never made up my mind about it. I'm still swaying back and forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

First,my opion is that they Hid WMDs,if you people ever thought of it..

Second,He voulnteer for the Army.

God sake, if you don't want to defend the US,don't join the Army.

but then again,if there was no WMD,tell me if we should have let Saddam in power then?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:

---

It is possible that Iraq hid WMD's or shipped them to a "friendly" locale in Syria or even Iran, but no evidence has been released to indicate this. A modest number of WMD's have been found during the occupation, but there is no indication of an ongoing program at the time of the invasion. Interestingly, there are some indications that many of the higher-echelon leaders in Saddam's Iraq were convinced that they had such weapons and that it is possible that Saddam himself was being told what he wanted to hear and thus had an inflated opinion of his ability to re-start such programs and the like. The most likely verdict is that the Bush administration was sincere in its decision to invade under the perceived threat of WMD's, but that the intelligence work confirming the existence of such weapons was not of the highest quality -- too much was accepted as true because it fit our fears (a classic problem in decision-making).

Sheehan served honorably, dying during a service episode that was beyond normal duty expectations. His mother's loss is not reparable, but is, sadly, a product of conflict. The decision to employ violence always carries a cost.

Saddam was a pig. Removing him was an appropriate act. Kicking over the apple cart without better information as to the consequences was not an example of excellent planning. Power abhors a vacuum and violence and mayhem the usual byproducts of the atmosphere re-establishing itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

It did? Oops, that was not my intention. :oops:


Meh, 'nuff of this. Let us have a beer instead Redleg. :yes:

~:cheers:

---

If your ever in Dallas - drop by. A frosty mug will be available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Chances are that those WMD's would have been found by now.

As to the second point, would you believe that I really struggle with that? I have never made up my mind about it. I'm still swaying back and forth.

---

I don't know if that is the case, if they were moved out of the country they probably would have not. And in all honesty, even if Bush believed they were, there is little he could do about it. His credibility is shot due to the fact that we havn't found them so it is somewhat of a vicous cycle, if tommorow he announces he thinks they are Syria he would have little support at home or abroad to do anything about it.

I don't think we will ever know whether he truly had them and hid/moved them, didn't have them and was just bluffing, didn't have them but was actively running programs to develope them, or had zero intentions of ever having anything to do with them again. Well, atleast we won't for a long while.

I think Bush will be judged on Iraq by history based off of how well he is able to reverse his military blunders of the first year of the war and how Iraq turns out over whether we ever find WMDs or not. If 20 years from now Iraq is doing well it will be viewed as a positive thing (look at the difference between modern N and S Korea, the state of S korea itself proves it was a good thing we prevailed in the Korean war, regardless of the debates and politicing of the time). If not, he will be looked back on very unpleasently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus

Saddam was a pig. Removing him was an appropriate act. Kicking over the apple cart without better information as to the consequences was not an example of excellent planning. Power abhors a vacuum and violence and mayhem the usual byproducts of the atmosphere re-establishing itself.

---

This is exactly the dilemma I struggle with.

If Saddam could be toppled and *poof!* democracy and the rule of law established, I would have signed up for the US army myself.

In real life, I expected 'something more or less along the lines of what happened' to happen. The cost in human lives of the war, of the power vacuum and of the ensuing instability could have been expected to have been greater than they would have been under Saddam.

Even so, that still doesn't mean he shouldn't have been removed. If I can draw a somewhat tacky analogy: suppose a guy takes command of my house and rules it like a tyrant. The police is sure that if they don't intervene, he will kill one of my familiy. And they are sure that if they will intervene, two of my family members will die, without the quality of life for my family improving.

I might yet urge them to barge in anyway and shoot the bastard.

Quote:

---

Chances are that those WMD's would have been found by now.

---

Not if they were hidden outside of Iraq. It would not be the first time Iraq got rid of its most valuable military assets before a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Not if they were hidden outside of Iraq. It would not be the first time Iraq got rid of its most valuable military assets before a war.

---

Like when they tried to fly their remaining air force into Iran :laugh4: .