The lies liberals love, What are we fighting for?

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

I do think they can be completely blind in some cases. Our intelligence services have screwed up all kinds of things. Remember 9/11? They couldn't even talk to each other effectively because of the bureacracy.

Frank

And there in lies the rub. Never in our future have we engaged in preemptive war fare. Many believe that is wrong for us to do. There is a good argument to go after a clear and eminent threat before it strikes the U.S. However, I have a very big problem basing preemptive wars on intelligence assets that are so lacking. Our intelligence "thought" there was a good case to go into Iraq. That case has not been proved to 100%. What, maybe 50/50? We said Iran had a active nuclear program, only to later find out it had been inactive for 3 years. If you want me to sign on to another preemptive war, it had better be a clear, indisputable, immediate threat based on something more than some intelligence info.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Powerman

Forgive me of viewing information from you skeptically.

One thing that is good is that if Saddam buried them, or threw them in a lake that is good. We went to war for those WMDs and they have been taken out of circulation. Bush will take a hit, but the world is better off. Yeah.

If they are in Syria as everyone seems to know, then we need to invade Syria for the same reasons we invaded Iraq.

Uhm,
I thought we wanted to invade Iran ???
Does Syria have oil, or just a confirmed case of the WMD's

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Powerman

If you want me to sign on to another preemptive war, it had better be a clear, indisputable, immediate threat based on something more than some intelligence info.

I absolutely agree. I have my differences with how we got into this war and how it was conducted (not by the troops) at the beginning, but the fact remains that we need to focus on what we need to do to secure the country and get the hell out.

I'm all for making sure that the evidence is indisputable.

Frank

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

I absolutely agree. I have my differences with how we got into this war and how it was conducted (not by the troops) at the beginning, but the fact remains that we need to focus on what we need to do to secure the country and get the hell out.

I'm all for making sure that the evidence is indisputable.

Frank

Agreed

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Powerman

There is a good argument to go after a clear and eminent threat before it strikes the U.S. .

Yes, that argument would be called the Constitution!



Peace,
D.

[Son of Norway]

Originally Posted by Judge

No, this was GWII...

If he can bury several 35 ton aircraft, each nearly 25 m long, burying a few hundred barrels of WMD in a country the size of the SE US is childsplay.

He couldn't hide himself in a coffin-sized hidey-hole...

Ya care to enlighten us as to where he hid these WMD? I think our forces are savvy enough to find whatever he hid. T-minus five years, nothing.

Here's a stick, the dead horse is waiting.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Son of Norway

He couldn't hide himself in a coffin-sized hidey-hole...

Ya care to enlighten us as to where he hid these WMD? I think our forces are savvy enough to find whatever he hid. T-minus five years, nothing.

Here's a stick, the dead horse is waiting.

too funny!

I guess our intelligence services need the services of "judge"

Peace,
D.