"Pray to God you don't drop that s___!"
Posted on 07/17/2018 7:18:32 AM PDT by God luvs America
This is not an anti-Iraq war rant; i fought in the streets in 2003 with Freepers & groups like Protest Warrior counter protesting the "peace protestors". Nor is this a rant against law enforcement- my dad was NYPD for almost two decades. Rather this is a reminder with facts for those who believe we should just blindly follow our politicized "intelligence" agencies. The same intelligence operations telling us russia interfered in our elections:
1- told us Iraq possessed WMD 2- never connected the dots in the lead up to 9-11; the worst terrorist attack on US solid 3- dismissed evidence on hand about terrorist attacks and mass killings such as the tsarnaev brothers, the Pulse nightclub killer and the Stoneman Douglas killer.
So remember this when the same people who marched in the streets yelling "What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want them? NOW!!" while obama sat in the WH saying the protests must go on, try and lecture you about treason...
Thanks, that’s a good point.
It gives those nations a boost toward backing us at the U. N. and the E. U. too.
Notice how the old Easter Block gets us, and Western Europe plays all high and mighty against us.
They also buried aircraft in the desert. Many images at link that also show some of the chemical weapons.
https://tinyurl.com/y8mpfta6
Here are a number of articles on ISIS, Iraq, and Syria regarding chemical weapons. ISIS had some. They came across them in Iraq.
How many billions a year does this Comedy act get?
If we left after capturing Saddam it would have only cost 8 billion. That was 8 months in.
For Pakistan Trump cut most aid this year.
Assasintion is a bad precedent. I suppose some folks think murder better than legitimate multinational action.
But they’d be wrong. Do we want rogue nation’s seeking to assasinate foreign leaders too?
well sir, taking you at your word, i thank you for your service.
in terms of your anonymous claims here, i find it ironic and somewhat mystifying, for a great many reasons, that some leaky bureaucrat or politican, or someone else with knowledge hasn’t already confirmed after almost 20 years what secretary powell has already said on national tv and demonstrated with photos to the whole nation. he said and showed enough then to make the case for nuclear credible. of course, the subject was so serious that it lent credibility to the bush administration’s presentation. one assumed that there was much more evidence than that necessary to justify total war (i.e., an existential threat to our allies, namely Israel). what ever you think about bio or chemical, it can’t win a war, that was proven in WWI.
with all you’ve said, there’s nothing actionable in your comments that i could use to change my current opinion, that there were no conventional nuclear weapons in saddam’s arsenal and that there wasn’t even credible, independently verifiable evidence of the same found. i know, the claim is that they were moved out or hidden or spiked. clear evidence of that would of course come out. saddam and his henchmen were interogated weren’t they? nuclear is not easy (i’m an engineer by trade). it’s very hard. it’s harder to hide.
ah well, if i’m to be in the dark on this, i’ll have to remain so for now—until i can get hard data points supporting yours and others vague and incoherent claims. the circumstantial evidence against you all is far too strong at this point. may God bless you, though.
Yeah.
The Eastern Bloc countries have seen the dark side and they’re dumbfounded over Western Europe’s headlong race to become the polar opposite of what they were during the cold war.
Yes, I agree. Sadly we can’t move them to our hemisphere.
Northern Mexico would make a great spot.
That’s just it though, I make no anonymous claims, just informing you that what you (we) generally have access to is written to tell a specific story for specific purposes.
Like you, I am not privy to the why.
As far as anyone claiming IRQ had missile/nukes- I think that is a odd claim. Why the focus on nukes? Intent to develop= indeed documented by the international UN effort. Anyway, WMD include a wide array of TIC and TIMs, and Bio agents simply weaponized or intended to be so. A trip to the local AG store can make up a nasty cocktail. These weapons can indeed win a war ( the war of public opinion and terror risk, at least)-even if not military system delivered as in WWI- Recall then, gas weapons were used against troops in the open, not in general urban settings where they would have been much more effective against populations. in WWI, there was some chivalry remaining, civilians were mostly uninvolved in direct action.
I can certainly appreciate your tenacity over the subject.
So many countries out there receive our aid and turn around every corner and screw the USA.
Way past time to understand that countries like Pakistan are NOT our friends and deserve zilch from us.
Any one who pays others to be your budds chump.
ok. directly to your points:
1. basically my case (that saddam had no nuclear arsenal capable of hitting Israel) is circumstantial (i.e., not based on what information is available as you say) but more based on what events should have happened given human nature and history. i pay little or no attention to official gov’t accounts or that in the leftist press (except for what they omit of course).
2. your claim that a bio/chem war (for national existence) is winnable.
then i ask you to simply name the war that was won by it and how. again (my claim based on history) they were used extensively by both sides in WWI with no effect on the outcome.
in terms of nuclear, i can name two that were won:
—the pacific theatre in WWII with the surrender of Japan.
—the Cold War between the US and the USSR (indirectly of course via economic pressure and MAD) the case is too lengthy to detail here but easily made).
to this day, i thank God for the providence that kept Germany from finishing their bomb before us.
in short my thesis and case:
bio/chem *has not* and, with previous use by many nations, i say *cannot win* a war for national survival. i would call them mass terror weapons (like the buzz bombs used in WWII). thus i would claim that terror weapons do not win wars (i believe they can cause them (for instance, saddams use of terror as a contributing factor for getting us into iraq) thus i again argue they do not justify total war.
also they have been used and possessed by many nations historically and thus do not have a deterrence effect.
on the contrary, nuclear arsenals have won national wars directly and indirectly as demonstrated by the facts of Japan’s and the USSR’s defeat. they have a pronounced deterrence effect as demonstrated by the Cold War. thus, their demonstrated presence by an enemy of Israel or America must draw a direct response up to and including war.
Not going to bite other than to say the paradigm ha changed. WMD are national risks. Most are easily transported and employed with little tech savvy.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.