Totally agree with you.... and BTW, that wasn't a bear... my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Printable View
Totally agree with you.... and BTW, that wasn't a bear... my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Guess we need to reiterate to your wife: Clean up after your pets please! [ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by n8tive97
As far as how good our technology is, the average cost to operate an NSA Keyhole imaging satellite is in the millions per week, and re-tasking, without regard for time, can cost up to $5Million in a pinch situation. There is a lot of sand to watch for, hence why we had SAS and Ranger teams scouring the desert for SCUDs during the 1st Gulf War, a look-down satellite can only see so much for so long.
I'm just not sure why such info would be classified after the shit storm that 'not having any WMDs' caused. Maybe details don't need to be given but this is some pretty big information that should have been at least glossed over years ago since it was our reason for going to war. I've said since day 1 I knew there was and have even been quick to point out that even if there wasn't Saddam was violating terms of the treaty that kept him in power after Desert Shield/Storm and the biggest of these was the disallowing of inspectors. This went on for quite a few years and if he wasn't doing anything wrong, why wouldn't he allow inspection as he agreed he would? We had been warning him for nearly a decade and after 9/11 it was brought to our attention that these sorts of things could result in the loss of American lives. It brought all of our 'threats' into focus and Saddam was a big one of those. Whether he harbored Al Qaeda or not. My point was that if this was the primary reason for going to war then how can we as a nation get away with saying there weren't any, effectively destroying our credibility on the world stage, and then continue to deny this for years afterward during a time when our nation needs to save as much face as possible. Why this information, if it exists, has been made top secret is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
The keyword you're looking for is evidence. Empty chemical casks don't constitute enough evidence to the American public these days with our CSI and NCIS and what not. People need concrete evidence, and the DIA, CIA, and various .mil organizations couldn't provide actual samples of what they discovered in Iraq, thus they could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam actually had them. On the other side, one of the bigger reasons why Bush made the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection was that if he had the ability to refine and weaponize anything from small pox to a full blown nuke, he supported AQ's mission against the west (and spoke openly about this after 9/11), and we didn't want to run the risk that they would be his best customers, because we all know Saddam didn't have the means to carry out a direct attack on US soil, but AQ did as we all saw. The burden of proof falls, unfortunately, on our teams that searched for months after the initial invasion, and thanks to the cheesedicks in Hollywood we had to come up with something a little more concrete than what we did find. I just don't know for the life of me why people didn't see what that maniac was doing to his own people (the mass murder of 1,000's of Kurds using chemical agents, the torture and murder of his own people, ruling the country with an iron fist, Uday and Qussay torturing people, and the mentality that if you speak out against the leader you would be severely punished) and see that alone as justification to oust the bastard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer