250,000 tons of weapons unaccounted for in Iraq
- Thread starter ZarathosNY
- Start date
Does this mean that all of a sudden now the weapons in Iraq were important and that invading them to get rid of the weapons was a good idea?
I'd like to see your plan to clean out a country the size of california that has tons of weapons in every town while your enemy has over a year to move them out before you come in Cheapy.
I'd like to see your plan to clean out a country the size of california that has tons of weapons in every town while your enemy has over a year to move them out before you come in Cheapy.
[quote name='CheapyD']My plan...
DONT INVADE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE[/quote]
Uhh if you didn't invade them they'd still have *ALL* the weapons lol
And hindsight is 20/20. Our government, which included senators such as John Kerry, evaluated the intel and voted to attack Iraq, that they needed to be disarmed. Not all of our usual allies joined us because some were on Saddam's payroll, as has been proved.
DONT INVADE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE[/quote]
Uhh if you didn't invade them they'd still have *ALL* the weapons lol
And hindsight is 20/20. Our government, which included senators such as John Kerry, evaluated the intel and voted to attack Iraq, that they needed to be disarmed. Not all of our usual allies joined us because some were on Saddam's payroll, as has been proved.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Ruined']Does this mean that all of a sudden now the weapons in Iraq were important and that invading them to get rid of the weapons was a good idea?
I'd like to see your plan to clean out a country the size of california that has tons of weapons in every town while your enemy has over a year to move them out before you come in Cheapy.[/quote]
We were told those "weapons" were WMDs. Explosives are NOT WMDs. But now that our troops are in harm's way for no good reason, it was the responsibility of this adminstration to keep them as safe as possible. And that meant securing those explosives.
I'd like to see your plan to clean out a country the size of california that has tons of weapons in every town while your enemy has over a year to move them out before you come in Cheapy.
[/quote]We were told those "weapons" were WMDs. Explosives are NOT WMDs. But now that our troops are in harm's way for no good reason, it was the responsibility of this adminstration to keep them as safe as possible. And that meant securing those explosives.
Voted for the authorization to use force, idiot. Come on. There's a huge god damned difference, and anyone who is too stupid to understand isn't worth listening to.
And John Stewart said yesterday, "The terrorists have them *NOW*."
Terrorists didn't have the weapons, when Hussein was in power. The IAEA was inspecting those sites, and they were under lock & key. Now that we've invaded, they're not, the terrorists have them, and things are worse now than before.
And your point that CheapyD should have had a plan for securing Iraq is STUPID. CheapyD didn't plan the invasion, and he isn't in charge of insuring that we have the proper resources to do the job. His point, that the people in charge *should* have done it properly, or not at all, is spot on.
seppo
And John Stewart said yesterday, "The terrorists have them *NOW*."
Terrorists didn't have the weapons, when Hussein was in power. The IAEA was inspecting those sites, and they were under lock & key. Now that we've invaded, they're not, the terrorists have them, and things are worse now than before.
And your point that CheapyD should have had a plan for securing Iraq is STUPID. CheapyD didn't plan the invasion, and he isn't in charge of insuring that we have the proper resources to do the job. His point, that the people in charge *should* have done it properly, or not at all, is spot on.
seppo
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='CheapyD']My plan...
DONT INVADE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE[/quote]
Uhh if you didn't invade them they'd still have *ALL* the weapons lol
And hindsight is 20/20. Our government, which included senators such as John Kerry, evaluated the intel and voted to attack Iraq, that they needed to be disarmed. Not all of our usual allies joined us because some were on Saddam's payroll, as has been proved.[/quote]
Disarmed of WMDs, not regular explosives. You're forgetting why we went in there, according to Dubya.
DONT INVADE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE[/quote]
Uhh if you didn't invade them they'd still have *ALL* the weapons lol
And hindsight is 20/20. Our government, which included senators such as John Kerry, evaluated the intel and voted to attack Iraq, that they needed to be disarmed. Not all of our usual allies joined us because some were on Saddam's payroll, as has been proved.[/quote]
Disarmed of WMDs, not regular explosives. You're forgetting why we went in there, according to Dubya.
[quote name='helava']Voted for the authorization to use force, idiot. Come on. There's a huge god damned difference, and anyone who is too stupid to understand isn't worth listening to.[/quote]
No need for namecalling because you disagree with me.
And Kerry did much more than just vote, he *supported the war greatly.*
Kerry, along with the majority of senators and the rest of our gov't, was very much for the war, before he decided he can only win president if he changed his viewpoint and went against the war long after it started. You can watch these entertaining movies to see the evolution of his flipflopping position.
part 1-
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/101104v1-1.wmv
part 2-
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC172004W_flat-1.wmv
as for the explosives, again we had a plan, things never go perfectly in war, and saddam had a year before we invaded to move the stuff. if we didnt invade, he'd still have *all* of the explosives. if you are criticizing the actions here, be very clear you are not criticizing bush, you are criticizing the troops and the commanders in the field for their planning. You are no longer supporting are troops by making this argument as them and their commanders are the one who came up with the plans and were in charge of securing the explosives, not Bush.
No need for namecalling because you disagree with me.
And Kerry did much more than just vote, he *supported the war greatly.*
Kerry, along with the majority of senators and the rest of our gov't, was very much for the war, before he decided he can only win president if he changed his viewpoint and went against the war long after it started. You can watch these entertaining movies to see the evolution of his flipflopping position.
part 1-
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/101104v1-1.wmv
part 2-
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC172004W_flat-1.wmv
as for the explosives, again we had a plan, things never go perfectly in war, and saddam had a year before we invaded to move the stuff. if we didnt invade, he'd still have *all* of the explosives. if you are criticizing the actions here, be very clear you are not criticizing bush, you are criticizing the troops and the commanders in the field for their planning. You are no longer supporting are troops by making this argument as them and their commanders are the one who came up with the plans and were in charge of securing the explosives, not Bush.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='E-Z-B']I would've been for the war too if I had some cooked up data from the Bush administration and the CIA that was later found to be fake.[/quote]
utoh tinfoil hat time[/quote]
Yeah, like the uranium from Africa? How about the mobile weapons labs? Let me guess - you still believe those exist, right?
You seriously need to stop watching Faux news.
utoh tinfoil hat time[/quote]
Yeah, like the uranium from Africa? How about the mobile weapons labs? Let me guess - you still believe those exist, right?
You seriously need to stop watching Faux news.
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Ruined'][quote name='E-Z-B']I would've been for the war too if I had some cooked up data from the Bush administration and the CIA that was later found to be fake.[/quote]
utoh tinfoil hat time[/quote]
Yeah, like the uranium from Africa? How about the mobile weapons labs? Let me guess - you still believe those exist, right?
You seriously need to stop watching Faux news.[/quote]
No I don't believe they exist. But I also don't believe it was some massive government conspiracy, a tinfoil hat theory. You need to stop watching Michael Moore movies
I believe we got lots of bad intel on Iraq, much like our bad intel led to 9/11. This isn't surprising because it turns out Saddam was doing his best to project to everyone that he still did have WMDs, because he wanted to stay in power after the first war and intimidate other countries in the area such as Iran. He fooled everyone including our intel, and this can be somewhat pieced together even with common sense.
utoh tinfoil hat time[/quote]
Yeah, like the uranium from Africa? How about the mobile weapons labs? Let me guess - you still believe those exist, right?
You seriously need to stop watching Faux news.[/quote]
No I don't believe they exist. But I also don't believe it was some massive government conspiracy, a tinfoil hat theory. You need to stop watching Michael Moore movies
I believe we got lots of bad intel on Iraq, much like our bad intel led to 9/11. This isn't surprising because it turns out Saddam was doing his best to project to everyone that he still did have WMDs, because he wanted to stay in power after the first war and intimidate other countries in the area such as Iran. He fooled everyone including our intel, and this can be somewhat pieced together even with common sense.
[quote name='E-Z-B']Our intel was based on Iraqi insurgents who had their own agendas (Chalabi). Even though the CIA believed those documents to be fake, Bush went ahead and used them anyway to justify going into Iraq. I wouldn't say "conspiracy" - I would just say "a big fat lie".[/quote]
We had multiple sources of intel that Iraq had WMDs, from our intel, UK intel, and Russian intel. Saddam did his best to make it look like he had WMDs, and that is very simply how we (and other countries) got tricked. Saddam wanted to stay in power, but since he really had nothing he wanted to project he had WMDs to Iran so they didn't attack.
Its really quite simple, and thats all it boils down to. Saddam played a complex charade that he had WMDs to intimidate neighbors and the world, and managed to trick everyone including most international sources of intelligence. We simply couldn't risk him having WMDs after all these sources of intel were telling us he did after 9/11, due to his instability in the past and his use of WMDs in the past. He obviously had no conscience, so there is no doubt he would have sold the WMDs to terrorists if a proposition was made. So we invaded based on all the intel we had, and found out the truth.
Though he didn't have any WMDs, in the process we liberated Iraq, destroyed lots of weapons, wiped out lots of al-qeada, and discovered that major countries like France and Russia were on Saddam's payroll in attempt to influence sanctions removal in the UN. Some good definitely came out of invading, and at the time our government, including John Kerry, agreed we had no choice but to protect ourselves and go into Iraq.
We had multiple sources of intel that Iraq had WMDs, from our intel, UK intel, and Russian intel. Saddam did his best to make it look like he had WMDs, and that is very simply how we (and other countries) got tricked. Saddam wanted to stay in power, but since he really had nothing he wanted to project he had WMDs to Iran so they didn't attack.
Its really quite simple, and thats all it boils down to. Saddam played a complex charade that he had WMDs to intimidate neighbors and the world, and managed to trick everyone including most international sources of intelligence. We simply couldn't risk him having WMDs after all these sources of intel were telling us he did after 9/11, due to his instability in the past and his use of WMDs in the past. He obviously had no conscience, so there is no doubt he would have sold the WMDs to terrorists if a proposition was made. So we invaded based on all the intel we had, and found out the truth.
Though he didn't have any WMDs, in the process we liberated Iraq, destroyed lots of weapons, wiped out lots of al-qeada, and discovered that major countries like France and Russia were on Saddam's payroll in attempt to influence sanctions removal in the UN. Some good definitely came out of invading, and at the time our government, including John Kerry, agreed we had no choice but to protect ourselves and go into Iraq.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
A friend of mine returned to the CIA and worked in Iraq in 2003, including Abu Graib. He says he's one of 500 people to see the "intel" that your talking about (at that time). It was all questionable, most could be discredited as fakes, with the rest offering no concrete evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq. He left just before the prison scandal broke out, but told me that it was time for Bush to go.
Saddam might have been playing a game, but there were sanctions and no fly zones in place. He wasn't going anywhere. There were other means to solve that problem instead of sacrificing 1,000+ American lives and $200b in taxpayer money. It was in no means worth it.
And I doubt the russians were sharing any intelligence with us.
Saddam might have been playing a game, but there were sanctions and no fly zones in place. He wasn't going anywhere. There were other means to solve that problem instead of sacrificing 1,000+ American lives and $200b in taxpayer money. It was in no means worth it.
And I doubt the russians were sharing any intelligence with us.
[quote name='E-Z-B']A friend of mine returned to the CIA and worked in Iraq in 2003, including Abu Graib. He says he's one of 500 people to see the "intel" that your talking about (at that time). It was all questionable, most could be discredited as fakes, with the rest offering no concrete evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq. He left just before the prison scandal broke out, but told me that it was time for Bush to go.[/quote]
There is much division in the CIA. One man's testimony doesn't represent the whole organization.
Again, our government didn't think it was worth the risk of not attacking Iraq, including John Kerry, based on the intel that was provided to them. No getting around that point. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and you could now argue it was not worth it, but back then in a post september 11th world you could not with the intel we had.
Not surprised you missed the AP story, it was buried by most liberal news sources as it greatly supports our reasons for going to war:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1.html
[quote name='Associated Press']
ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.[/quote]
There is much division in the CIA. One man's testimony doesn't represent the whole organization.
Again, our government didn't think it was worth the risk of not attacking Iraq, including John Kerry, based on the intel that was provided to them. No getting around that point. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and you could now argue it was not worth it, but back then in a post september 11th world you could not with the intel we had.
Not surprised you missed the AP story, it was buried by most liberal news sources as it greatly supports our reasons for going to war:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1.html
[quote name='Associated Press']
ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.[/quote]
bread's done