The lies liberals love, What are we fighting for?

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by trik396

So you don't think it's possible that Saddam ordered some of his army to dig a huge hole in the desert, bury the goods, then kill all those who knew the location?

So you don't think it's possible that Saddam shipped the WMD to Syria?

You don't think those two highly plausible events took place

You actually think those are "highly plausible".

2/3 of Iraq has been under a no fly zone and enforced by us since GWI. Iraq has been the most monitored patch of land for the last decade. If you believe that Saddam dug a hole and buried a large stockpile of weapons without us knowing, then you believe our intelligence assets are completely blind. Remember in the 60's we could see missiles on ships and sites being prepared.

Saddam was our enemy. Same as Syria. If we went to war for that stockpile of WMDs, the same one that was shipped across the border without us seeing it, then why have we not invaded Syria? A enemy of the U.S., and an enemy of Israel, that now possesses the very stockpile of WMDs we went to war for. And you call that "highly plausible"

[trik396]

If you think we were/are able to monitor every truck that moves about in Iraq or that crosses a boarder, you are living in a fantasy. We are good, but not that good.

[Powerman]

No we can't monitor every truck that crosses the border. However, if you think we can't monitor weapons depots in Iraq and weapons unloading in Syria, then you are living in the 1800s. We are that good. We can read a license plate from space. Not only do we have satellites, but we had the 71, and surveillance drones operating at will over the skys of Iraq.

The thing is we didn't go there for the few pre GWI weapons we found. We went there for the active WMD program and the large stockpile of weapons. If you believe that some how slipped by, then it is not me that is living in fantasy.

[trik396]

Originally Posted by Powerman

No we can't monitor every truck that crosses the border. However, if you think we can't monitor weapons depots in Iraq and weapons unloading in Syria, then you are living in the 1800s. We are that good. We can read a license plate from space. Not only do we have satellites, but we had the 71, and surveillance drones operating at will over the skys of Iraq.

The thing is we didn't go there for the few pre GWI weapons we found. We went there for the active WMD program and the large stockpile of weapons. If you believe that some how slipped by, then it is not me that is living in fantasy.

So what you are saying is that with this great surveillance we have, we'd know exactly where the WMD was.... and we invaded because of WMD... but we couldn't find any...

Your thinking is really flawed...

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Powerman

The only thing that gives terrorists any power is oil.

And opium.

Peace,
D.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by trik396

So what you are saying is that with this great surveillance we have, we'd know exactly where the WMD was.... and we invaded because of WMD... but we couldn't find any...

Your thinking is really flawed...

No, not really. We knew he had them because we sold them to him. We knew he used them against the Kurds after GWI. What Bush sold us on, and used the integrity of Powell to bolster, was that he had a active weapons program, was seeking nuclear weapons, and had large stockpiles of chemical weapons. As we know now, that was all cherry picked intel for justifications of invasion. I never said they had a large stock pile post GWI, Bush did. I never said they had active programs and nuclear weapons technology, Bush did.

I have no problem with the fact that they are not there, because they never existed. Yes we had some intel, but we didn't fully investigate in a prudent manner. We (administration) just ran with whatever gave us a reason to invade. However, somehow, those that believed it back then, just can't let go, and have to come up with some wild story about how they vanished into thin air. Either he had them and we knew where, and we knew what, or he didn't. We can't know who, what, and where, and then all of a sudden mysteriously loose track of them. Your thinking is flawed.

The only logical, "plausible" explanation, is that they didn't exist in the first place. And while we did have some intel, and therefore Bush did not "lie", or manufacture it, he did not explore all options in a prudent manner. He made his case for invasion, and since then that case has not panned out.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by Delija

And opium.

Peace,
D.

I forgot about that. This war has certainly been a boon for the opium trade.

[New2Arms]

Originally Posted by Powerman

We knew he had them because we sold them to him. We knew he used them against the Kurds after GWI... ...As we know now, that was all cherry picked intel for justifications of invasion.

Very true.

And looking back I should of clarified my point, instead of letting it sit out there. When I said "oil", I didn't literally mean barrels, I meant control of it. Agreeing with an earlier post, I forget who said it (para-phrasing) "without oil we wouldn't care about Iraq".

[trik396]

Originally Posted by Powerman

No, not really. We knew he had them because we sold them to him. We knew he used them against the Kurds after GWI. What Bush sold us on, and used the integrity of Powell to bolster, was that he had a active weapons program, was seeking nuclear weapons, and had large stockpiles of chemical weapons. As we know now, that was all cherry picked intel for justifications of invasion. I never said they had a large stock pile post GWI, Bush did. I never said they had active programs and nuclear weapons technology, Bush did.

I have no problem with the fact that they are not there, because they never existed. Yes we had some intel, but we didn't fully investigate in a prudent manner. We (administration) just ran with whatever gave us a reason to invade. However, somehow, those that believed it back then, just can't let go, and have to come up with some wild story about how they vanished into thin air. Either he had them and we knew where, and we knew what, or he didn't. We can't know who, what, and where, and then all of a sudden mysteriously loose track of them. Your thinking is flawed.

The only logical, "plausible" explanation, is that they didn't exist in the first place. And while we did have some intel, and therefore Bush did not "lie", or manufacture it, he did not explore all options in a prudent manner. He made his case for invasion, and since then that case has not panned out.

Well I guess we disagree strongly. And we'll have to leave it at that.

[Judge]

actually he did... and Iraq was not that closely monitored...

SH buried MIG-25 Foxbats, we didn't know about or know where - till local intel was provided us.

Originally Posted by Powerman

You actually think those are "highly plausible".

2/3 of Iraq has been under a no fly zone and enforced by us since GWI. Iraq has been the most monitored patch of land for the last decade. If you believe that Saddam dug a hole and buried a large stockpile of weapons without us knowing, then you believe our intelligence assets are completely blind. Remember in the 60's we could see missiles on ships and sites being prepared.

Saddam was our enemy. Same as Syria. If we went to war for that stockpile of WMDs, the same one that was shipped across the border without us seeing it, then why have we not invaded Syria? A enemy of the U.S., and an enemy of Israel, that now possesses the very stockpile of WMDs we went to war for. And you call that "highly plausible"