Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Patriot
Exactly what "world body" does a good job at policing terrorism? You wouldn't be referring to the U.N., now would ya? I REALLY hope not.
As for all the name-calling & childish bullshit, cram it up your traitorous asses, then go fuck your mothers. The only one to argue against my point intelligently so far is Storman Norman. So, to him I will reply with substance.
SN: Before the invasion of Iraq, the U.N. tried for over 12 years to receive Saddam's permission to inspect for WMD's. Immediately before the Iraq invasion, the British, Israeli, and Russian intelligence communities were unanimous in their belief that Iraq had WMD's, along with the American intelligence community.
Is it not possible that the weapons were moved, say, to some other country like Syria? If your answer is no, please explain how that isn't possible.
|
No, for two primary reason and a third lesser one:
1) When the ISG was on the ground in Iraq, they found absolutely nothing. And when I say nothing, I mean nothing. Not only did they not find the actual weapons, they found no evidence of infrastructure, expertise, heavy industry, people...all the kind of things you need to have a sophisticated weapons program. It would be like us trying to hide our car industry in, say, two months leaving no trace that we ever built cars. We couldn't do it.
2) Needless to say, in the months leading up to the war, there was quite a bit of sensor coverage over Iraq. It would be difficult to move across a border or burry large amounts of anything without it being noticed.
3) If the Bush Administration thought it was even slightly possible that Syria or anyone else had Saddam's WMDs, you would think that they would act on it....then again, maybe not. I don't know.
So, in conclusion, SP, the chances are very small...probably zero...that they had anything WMD-related, at least built before 1990. Now, that being said, most believe Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs if and when the sanctions were lifted. That's probably true...although I question whether or not all of the sanctions would have ever been lifted while he was in power.
But, I have to tell you, SP,....I never bought into the WMD boogey man. And what I mean by that is this: In 2003, I thought that Iraq had some chemical weapons. I really did. Now, I didn't buy much of what the Administration was saying...."worst weapons known to mankind," "mushroom clouds," etc...but, I thought he had some chemical weapons. And you know what, SP? I didn't give a shit. Honestly, who cares? It didn't concern me from a view point of American national security, one iota. The WMD threat was (and still is) way over blown in my mind.
Quote:
|
Yes, the war in Iraq was, at first, mishandled. Our troops still have not received the permission to fight this war to win, not to be politically correct.
|
And they won't, but that's the fight we picked...and why I did not want us to get involved in an overt ground war with insurgents in the middle of a foreign country....one that we are trying to befriend.
Quote:
|
I suspect this war would have been over inside of a year had our troops not had one proverbial hand tied behind their backs.
|
Except that we wouldn't have achieved any of our goals....that is the establishment of a strong, central, democratic,
pro-US Iraqi government. This isn't WWII, SP. The Iraqi people did nothing to us. If we went in strong-handed with guns a blazing, "shoot first and ask questions later," we would severely alienate the population...and have absolutely no chance of making Iraq what we want...in fact, it would be much worse off.
Again, SP, it's the fight we picked...and it really has nothing to do with being PC, etc.
Quote:
|
Now that our troops are there, we have a great opportunity to help create a stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
|
Except I don't see that happening.
Quote:
|
They would be a very valuable ally in the overall war on terror and serve as an example to those living in fascist theocracies of how good life can really be. Is that not a noble goal?
|
It is...but, it's not a realistic one. Decisions need to be driven by pragmatism, not idealism. This one was driven by idealism...and we are paying for it.
Linear Mode
