I dont really think it matters whether these vials are sarin or not nobody (apart from the pro-Bush types) are gonna believe this. They just happen to "find" boxes with big fuck off labels in languages that suggest it could have been sold by two countries opposed to the war...!? Hmmmmm indeedy!

the word freedom, especialy used in comparison to Islamic Facism, does not embarass me. never has.

i'm not ashamed to use the "buzzword"

the word "buzzword" is cliche'. people don't sacrifice for the word "buzzword"

pride is free.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Yes, both lie in a problem with quantity. Sure a couple ounces of weaponized serin were found (so what if it was for a test-kit.. it could have been used as a weapon (? ) Same as saying the terrorist stole all the WMD at the ammo depot because they might have stole one or two tons. We don't know they were terrorist who stole them, we don't know how much, we don't know when, we don't know for what purpose, etc... These scenarios are comparable IMO as the numbers proving a point simply don't add up. two ounces of serin don't equal WMD. Just like missing WMD and the fact that there are looters in Iraq doesn't equal the fact that terrorist stole them.

If you continue to believe the Sarin found is evidence of Iraqi WMDs than you’re an ignorant fool, because that’s been factually proven to be incorrect. Believing that looters stole RMX and HMX explosives from unguarded ammo dumps has not only NOT been proven factually incorrect, but it is in fact highly probable given the mountain of evidence that has been collected on the subject. Therefore equating the two is analogous to me equating the theory of gravity with the theory of God.

quote:

Why?

Because they’re bombastic oversimplifications. If you think the Iraq war is comprable to the cold war or WW2 you might as well join the crowd who think the Patriot Act is 1984-esque and that 9/11 is analogous to the Reichstag fire in allowing Bush to erode all our rights. The war against terrorism is of an entirely different scale and nature than the Cold War or WW2 therefore arguments that we should spend or die as much are incompatible.

quote:

Look I am not going to elaborate on how the US is "Saving the world" by invading Iraq or the war on terror. If you don't get it by now, nothing I can do will help you understand this, all we will do is argue endlessly amongst ourselves on this. So I'll make it simple. This is a global war against a global evil. This global war, just like WW2 and the cold war is being led by the USA and is being faught on multiple battlefields (just like some disagreed that Vietnam played any role in the fight to win the Cold War, some argue that the battlefield of Iraq plays no role in the war on terror.. as you are alluding too. Regardless the war on terror is an equivalent of the cold war as it is a war against an ideology and is conducted in many places in many ways, not always hot). Now if you look at the total cost of the war on terror so far, of which Iraq is part of (even if you disagree that it contributes to the success, would you argue that Vietnam, or Iran/Iraq, or Panama, or Latin American covert-ops were not part of the cold war?) it pales in comparison to the historic cost of waging such global wars. Yes, technology has made magnificent strides in the past 10-15 years since the end of the cold war. But if we were to tally up the cost of winning the cold war, from North Korea, to Afghanistan, the Iran/Iraq wars, and the fall of the Berlin wall, you are talking about trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. This all happened in less than a timespace of 2 generations. I am just shocked at how people are shocked about the cost of waging war. War is not cheap to wage, and therefore people do not chose to do so on the slightest whim (unless they are loonies). Since the First Gulf War there has been some wars are bloodless syndrome where by if 10 servicemen say get killed in a Somolian city all hell goes into a handbasket. Granted technology gives us many advantages in reducing the cost of waging war... but it seems that people want it to create completely bloodless wars... Is is not enough that in less than 80 years, wars have changed from having casualties of millions, then to hundreds of thousands, then to tens of thousands, and now when numbers reach near just 1000 people go into shock. AND THEN not only does technology reduce casualties of war by a factor of a 100 BUT people complain that IT COST TO MUCH! WELL BOO FUCKING WHOO. What do you want 5000 to have died instead of 1000? If none of them had humvees, armor, and rifles since the 40s I'm sure we could have saved billions on this war... What always surpises me about this is that the same people that are in shock of the current casualties primarly in Iraq today, were prior to the initation of hostilites predicting massive casualtie counts of 3,000 - 15,000 during invasion.

LOL look I’m not whining about Iraq as being a big clusterfuck because it suddenly became too costly. I realize perfectly well how the costs of war have been historically much greater in the past. As a minor tangent, the fact that the cost of war has been much greater in the past does not mean we should be willing to tolerate such costs today. Back on topic, you are arguing that historically wars have been costly, we should expect high costs, blah blah blah … which is fine and dandy however you missed the entire point of my argument: the costs do not outweigh the benefits of invading Iraq.

quote:

Invasion was easy, occupation is a bit more challenging. But its not as challenging as harsh critics believed invasion would be....

So not challenging that I guess the occupation wasn’t worth planning for right?

quote:

So freedom is BS to you?

It’s BS when people use the word in the same way that others use “Nazi”, “Hitler”, “1984”, “terrorist”, etc.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo recent estimates on the total economic losses due to September 11, 2001 attacks are close to $1 trillion. could you imagine the numbers, lives and otherwise, if the stupid people utilixed the 20 tons of mustard gas found in Lybia? i'm not saying that the economic losses would be greater than or even equal, but as far as devastation, what price could be paid for something like that? none really. to me, it's not about the money. do you think it's about money? or just more money?

All of which would be relevant if 20 tons of mustard gas were in Iraq.

However, you do make a compelling case for the invasion of Syria, Iran, N. Korea, etc. So let’s criticize Bush’s decision to not invade those countries.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider All of which would be relevant if 20 tons of mustard gas were in Iraq. However, you do make a compelling case for the invasion of Syria, Iran, N. Korea, etc. So let’s criticize Bush’s decision to not invade those countries.

we didn't have to invade Lybia. a terroristic, Islamic facist state.

who says we aren't going to invade Syria?

Iran is isolated now, in more ways than one. we are so not ready to invade Iran.

IMO invading Iraq was tactical genius toward the greater stategic goal.

this is where you and i differ on the opinion.

DPRNK might fall on it's own.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo we didn't have to invade Lybia. a terroristic, Islamic facist state.

And we didn’t have to invade Iraq … unless there was some imminent danger of which I was unaware of …

quote:

who says we aren't going to invade Syria?

Well why don’t we do it now???? Time’s a-wasting. Let’s increase defense spending, start up the draft, and go to war … because the benefits most certainly outweigh the costs right?

quote:

Iran is isolated now, in more ways than one. we are so not ready to invade Iran.

Hmmmm you mean kind of like Iraq? Oh wait no … only the US has sanctions on Iran. Last I checked Europe was still freely trading with Iran, and Russia is on plan to build nuclear reactors in Iran. So even though Iran is less isolated than Iraq, we shouldn’t invade them because we’re not in the mood to right now …

quote:

IMO invading Iraq was tactical genius toward the greater stategic goal. this is where you and i differ on the opinion.

Well if you call invading a country because they have wmds, only to find out that they didn’t have wmds, resulting in a $200 billion + 1-2 american deaths a day fiasco “tactical genius” than I’m afraid we are going to have to differ.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Huh? Invading Iraq has made us safer? Protecting them from what exactly? There's a blank check for poorly perceived threats? Ok ... I'm game. I'll use similar poor reasoning ... A major source for crime is poverty. So let's "protect" our children's future from crime by eliminating poverty. Massive entitlement and redistribution of wealth programs. Because protecting our children's future from crime or anything is priceless. Regardless of the abysmal rate of return on our investment.

Israeli Intel given to US link here

quote:

In fact, according to Brom, these sources were utterly compromised by Israeli intelligence, which made the case for starting the war and kept it going as long as necessary. The retired general described Israel as a “full partner” in U.S. and British intelligence failures that exaggerated Iraqi President Saddam Hussain’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs in the lead up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

___________________