What would have happened if a mortal enemy of Israel had WMD's within missile range? Would Israel do nothing about it? It would be the same as Cuba having nukes within range of NYC, Wash. DC, Miami, New Orleans. JFK didn't allow it. Israel wouldn't either. They'd have launched a massive attack on Iraq or face going up in a mushroom cloud. What would Israel's Arab enemies do if Israel launched an all out attack on Iraq without any provocation? There. Need I say more?
ISIS. that's all I gots to say. - - - Updated - - - Bush was a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing fool to think we would be welcomed in Iraq as "liberators" and then the country would become a moderate free democracy. i still cant believe it hasnt broken into three states.
If pigs had wings, they'd fly....but they don't. Saddam didn't HAVE any WMD's.... all we have EVER found is some old 1980's vintage artillery shells. Need I say more? Hans Blix and his team were back in Iraq and reporting reasonable cooperation from Iraq. Why in the world would Israel have been as stupid as George Bush was and not wait until Blix had done his job and fully assessed Saddam's weapons capabilities for them? And I cannot BELIEVE you had the audacity and gall to use the hackneyed old "mushroom cloud" line. Really pathetic. Saddam was nowhere NEAR a nuclear warhead....nowhere near.
It never should have been anything other than three states. the idiotic european diplomats who foolishly carved up the Ottoman Empire as spoils of war after WWI screwed the pooch for the rest of us for generations to come by throwing sunnis, shi'ites, and kurds together under one roof.
I think once the Taliban was driven out of Afghanistan, we should have let the 14 tribe Northern Alliance choose their own form of government. Let them go back to chieftain rule with each tribe ruling their own little section of Afghanistan as they wanted. We could have left a few SF, paramilitary on the ground their to bring back the bombers when the Taliban tried to return. The idea that we know best or what type of government every other country in the world should have is asinine. Democracy works for us because we have a long history of it going back to the Magna Carta. I am not that familiar with the middle east, not my area of expertise. But one can't expect something to flourish when the people do not want it. Forcing something upon someone is not the best way to make friends.
Are you genuinely ignorant of this discovery or are you just choosing to be ignorant? [video=youtube;dI5tKDx-YEs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI5tKDx-YEs[/video]
Old derangements die hard, eh? LOLOL [video=youtube;q7hfpNKKQrM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7hfpNKKQrM[/video]
my post: your post: "decades old chemical weapons" In case you didn't know it, those sorts of things don't make "mushroom clouds". wow
It would still be worth it, for a small group of men who have gotten very rich off of invading other nations, and war. You cannot satiate these elites with the blood money and American lives. For all that matters is more and more profits, for these men are insatiable in their greed. The invasion of Iraq and our continued meddling in the business of others has been a helluva recruiting tool for radical muslims. So, in order to keep the profits a soarin', we will continue to meddle in the business of other nations, especially in the middle east which is on the other side of the world. Like Vietnam, and the gulf of Tonkin lie, we went into Iraq under another contrived false flag. This had already been planned out by the neo cons, wolfawitz, rummy and cheney to name 3 of the big ones. All they needed was an excuse, and the nuclear weapons deal was what was used. The media being the lapdogs of the oligarchy didn't do their job, as usual, and never will. These never ending wars are waged for the corporate state, the oligarchy. And the American people are far too susceptible to the propaganda, which appeals to the emotions, and desert all rationality. The public is played time and time again, as they are being played now with ISIS. And it seems only a few Americans are astute, are smart enough to see the con job, and those are mostly libertarians, and a few on the far left. But both groups are too small to matter. So you have the hawk democrats and the conservatives who never saw a war they didn't like. But both of these groups are in with the oligarchs, who control them with money, although the conservatives would go to war without being bribed.
I pointed out that I had said, earlier in this thread, that the weapons we found were decades old chemical weapons.... and then, after that, you posted a cute screen shot of the Faux news crowd and pointed out that they had found "decades old chemical weapons" as if that were some new piece of information. duh. I guess following along is probably difficult for you.... maybe childhood ADD plays into this somehow? That's perfectly understandable in that case.
As if the Islamic revolution was ever intending to stay put? You are dreaming and your dreams run very close to sounding like the appeasement rationale that goes, "at least the tiger would eat US last." Short sighted thinking is a doorway the Jihadists exploit routinely. They don't threaten us unless we are ignorant of their plans, goals, tactics and motives. It looks like we will have some eye opening to do here.
No, just the ones the liberal media proffered up to the cameras to help you sell the false belief that W was wrong for invading. The problem with that is that it is a lie. W saved your behind. Get used to the idea. Individuals who have trouble accepting changes in reality are unreliable politiical analysts. Hint. Hint.
you're quite wrong. All we ever found were decades old artillery shells. not warheads. chemical weapons in artillery shells have a shelf life not a lot longer than a quart of whole milk. yawn..... NONE of those old shells make mushroom clouds. NONE of those old shells could make it to Israel from Iraq... heck, they'd be hard pressed to make it from Amman, Jordan to Jerusalem, given the altitude difference. Israel would not have launched a preemptive nuclear attack against Iraq because Iraq had decades old chemical weapons artillery shells. We should not have invaded Iraq for that purpose either. By invading Iraq, Bush set in motion a series of events that has served to destabilize the middle east. Iran is stronger now that Saddam is out of the picture. Iraqi sunnis are distrustful of their government after Bush let the shiites run the whole show... and now they see ISIS as a better alternative. Bush made me much less safe today than I would have been had a calmer, more rational man without the hidden neocon agenda been president then.
And I will NEVER agree to the fantasy that Bush somehow saved me. I will go to my grave despising the man for squandering any chance of building a world coalition against Islamic extremism by his misguided invasion of Iraq. The world was furious with AQ for what they did to us on 9/11. If Bush had used that conviction to create a coalition to fight AQ instead of Iraq, the world would not have turned their backs on us like they have now. On my bucket list of things to do, if I am lucky enough to outlive George W. Bush, is to go and urinate on his grave.
How old are you? Oh, excuse me. You are a liberal. Alright, let me expalin. Neither W nor Israel nor any of the Intel shops around the world definitively knew whether Saddam was telling the truth or bluffing. The fact that he had PREVIOUSLY been KNOWN to be working on Nuclear WMD's led W to mention the Mushroom Cloud as a worst case scenario which must be avoided at all costs. Get it? And even if the WMD's had ONLY been biological or chemical when Saddam used nerve gas on the Kurds thousands were killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack Now, how many were killed on 9/11/01? Fewer than would have been killed if Saddam had used nerve gas on Israel. If it had been 3,000 killed it would have exceeded our 9/11 death toll. And you believe that wouldn't have been enough to motivate Israel and the US government to try to prevent it? You are nucking futz if you believe that. Get it now?
and by the way, how old are you, Kraps? Have you had any experience in the middle east? Ever work there? Just curious.
And Bush never told America anything about not knowing whether or not Saddam was telling the truth. Bush told us, THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's even though he was aware of plenty of caveats and qualifiers in the NIEs on the subject. That's a lie to claim a total absence of doubt when doubt did exist in great quantities.
Oh, and I'm 64 years old. I served as a military observer/crisis mediator in Lebanon for two years in the early 80's. I worked in Southern Lebanon for a year and then worked in Beirut for a year. Former Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and I were good pals over there. We took our DoD/CIA indoctrination classes together before going over. (he took the photo of me in my avatar). I know a lot about the region. I would venture to say that I have forgotten more about the middle east between breakfast this morning and right now than you have ever known.
You have convinced the readership of who you are and how you think. As committed to remaining ignorant as a person can be. Say, I'm reminded of a song title. [video=youtube;HpxddSBg1ZQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpxddSBg1ZQ[/video]
Thanks for your service. You should call Gen. Casey and ask him what he thinks about recent developments and see what he thinks since you have denounced the practice it seems. Your concept of the threat of Global Jihad is skewed crazily, IMHO.
like I said, I could forget stuff about the middle east every day for years and still know more than you ever will. You're out of your league... really.... you are.
It seems you recall only that which serves your narrative which you haven't bothered to update. Become current with your knowledge and then come back to this thread and we will welcome you. But we may not believe you are the expert you fashion yourself to be until you show us the goods. Get up to date. - - - Updated - - - Put up or shut up. Tell us what Bush actually said. Not what you recall him saying.
have the caveats and qualifiers on 2001/2002/2003 National Intelligence Estimates changes somehow in the intervening decade or so? do decades old chemical artillery shells pose a more clear and present danger today, after a decade MORE of degradation than they did in 2003 after they had already degraded for a couple of decades then?
