Nobody can tell me...

[NUKE]

Nobody can argue with me on an equal level if they do not base their arguments on solid logic, or if I do not get too drunk.

[Toad]

If the mission was to eliminate their WMD, it's not accomplished.

Unless you think maybe we should invade Fiji and eliminate theirs too.

If it was to eliminate SH, that we did. But that's not why we ostensibly went, correct?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Toad
If the mission was to eliminate their WMD, it's not accomplished.

Unless you think maybe we should invade Fiji and eliminate theirs too.

If it was to eliminate SH, that we did. But that's not why we ostensibly went, correct?

I will tell you for at least the 2nd time: the mission was to ensure Iraq did not harbor WMD. Mission accomplished.

[Toad]

If that was the mission, we still haven't done it.

You saw the buried MiGs. The amount of anthrax they were supposed to have had would have fit entirely in the same hole they dug to bury a MiG-25.

Are you assuring me there's none buried anywhere in Iraq? Are you assuring me that when they ask us to leave....... and they will...... that they won't go dig some up somewhere we haven't looked?

You ASSUME we "made sure". There's absolutely no proof of that.

Logically.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Our mission was to find those WMDs and ensure they could not fall into other's hands.

Unless we find they never existed, mission failed... actually, mission failed either way because we have destroyed our integrity.
-SW

[Steve]

If it was to eliminate SH, that we did. But that's not why we ostensibly went, correct?

Incorrect.  We specifically went to remove SH from power and to remove his regimes' ability to wage war.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by NUKE
And Toad, the fact that no one knew what Iraq actually had as far as WMD, coupled with the fact that we could never know, as long as Saddam was in charge, was good enough reason for me.

Besides we know that at one point he did have them and was willing to use them.
We know this because he used them.
It would be foolish to take Saddam at his word that he no longer possesed them.

Couple other points. It is my understanding that the amount  of some of the stuff we are looking for can be stored in an area no larger then a two car garage. Simply because alot of stuff you do not need huge stokpiles of to be more then effective. Take a substance like anthrax for example. Just a litle bit can pack an awful large punch.
 It would be hard enough to find ina  small town let And your now trying to find it in an entire country.

Also some stuf the components alone prove nothing untill they are put together.
Just as Amonia and bleach for another example. Independant of one another you would think nothing of them. But mix them together and you have some pretty nasty stuff..

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Toad
If that was the mission, we still haven't done it.

You saw the buried MiGs. The amount of anthrax they were supposed to have had would have fit entirely in the same hole they dug to bury a MiG-25.

Are you assuring me there's none buried anywhere in Iraq? Are you assuring me that when they ask us to leave....... and they will...... that they won't go dig some up somewhere we haven't looked?

You ASSUME we "made sure". There's absolutely no proof of that.

Logically.

Toad, would you be more content if we had not invaded?

I saw the buried mig..found only after we invaded. Are you not happy that we found that mig?

Anthrax? Maybe you would prefer Saddam control that? As is stands, Iraq is contained.....no?

[Steve]

No NUKE. The mission was to remove the threat of Iraqi WMD that your government said it had proof existed in large quantities and was battlefield ready.

No, it wasn't.

[Steve]

said it had proof existed in large quantities and was battlefield ready.

Really?  where did the U.S say that?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe

Unless we find they never existed, mission failed-SW

No.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[NUKE]

I'm just saddened that I have to use my intelect against the likes of Toad ...

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

All his weapons, spare nuclear, have a very limited shelf life.

Steve, we (American public) were sold on WMDs... not on removing SH from power.
-SW

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Steve
Sandman, if one were extremely myopic, whether by lack of wisdom or a matter of convenience to espouse their politically canted view of things, this would seem clever indeed.

However, Saudi Arabia is not training terrosits nor supplying them(as far as we know to date) w/ comfort, arms, and training as we know Iraq was doing.

Iraq was, directly in some cases, indirectly in others.


  Additionally, Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East, is it not?
Did I not argue that since the threat is in the Middle East this is where we should be?

Hmmm... speaking of myopia... most of the 911 hijackers were Saudi, there are terrorist camps in Saudi Arabia, many members of Al-Qaeda are Saudi, and the Al-Qaeda was in fact largely funded with Saudi oil money.

BUT... the political risk is too high. Let's invade Iraq, a pissant country ruled by a pissant dictator. No political risk here. We might piss off France.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Drediock, if I have to spell that statement out - kindly step away from the keyboard and this thread.

"Unless we find they never existed"

Clearly that indicates we FOUND evidence they never existed.
-SW