Who would want to invade USA?

[Carlston]

Are you also trying to suggest that Weapons of Mass Destruction were in fact found, but no one ever stated it? Honestly? I don't usually ask for sources but I would like to see a few pieces of evidence before I consider that possibility.

Iraq, and removing Saddam were unnecessary, if the purpose was to root out terrorism in the middle east. Saudi Arabia finances terrorist, Syria is actively aggravating and sponsoring insurgent activity in the area, Pakistan had (and to some extent still has) a highly corrupt and fragile government as well as being a training ground for the taliban militias; yet it is decided to invade the one nation in the region that, while violent, has the least to do with terrorism?

If the argument for removing Saddam was not terrorism, but instead just because he was a bad guy, then, as I've already pointed out, there are far worse and far more still ruling elsewhere in the world who have not be removed by a US-led coalition. When do they get their turn?

Source for weapons of mass destruction?
You like all the others DON'T get it do you.

Only a moronic retard of a military attacking a enemy who FINDS WMD would tell the idiot news channels. You would have to secure it, transport it for decom/defuse (oh yeah all that "nuclear fuel" sent over seas reactor stuff right. I was in the navy at the time, and watched far to many "Innocent shipments from Iraq" be treated like anti-matter that could blow up the world.

If you honestly think black ops, secret dealing and the like don't happen then you don't need to post anything. And why is a prime target, not just the US had no use for him the entire UN had no use and he was easy to dethrone and make a example of.

The most peaceful of times comes with the blackest of black ops keeping the peace and the world in order. And yes Hitler is a good compare because...why? Genoncide, the evil little act that should get everyone sniped. There are more important and evil people but why the leaders took Sadam down, i'd say a example.

Site sources.... yeah like the worlds goverments are gonna tell moron sheeple their plans and put the neon sign on a warehouse with chems/bio/nukes on it for all the terrorists to atatck.... Yeah that's tactical...

Only a moron would demand to be told everything a country does....because they can't handle it and well, it's secret. Top Secret and need to know.

Which sheeple don't.

 

[Brett Alex]

Source for weapons of mass destruction?
You like all the others DON'T get it do you.

Only a moronic retard of a military attacking a enemy who FINDS WMD would tell the idiot news channels. You would have to secure it, transport it for decom/defuse (oh yeah all that "nuclear fuel" sent over seas reactor stuff right. I was in the navy at the time, and watched far to many "Innocent shipments from Iraq" be treated like anti-matter that could blow up the world.

If you honestly think black ops, secret dealing and the like don't happen then you don't need to post anything. And why is a prime target, not just the US had no use for him the entire UN had no use and he was easy to dethrone and make a example of.

The most peaceful of times comes with the blackest of black ops keeping the peace and the world in order. And yes Hitler is a good compare because...why? Genoncide, the evil little act that should get everyone sniped. There are more important and evil people but why the leaders took Sadam down, i'd say a example.

Site sources.... yeah like the worlds goverments are gonna tell moron sheeple their plans and put the neon sign on a warehouse with chems/bio/nukes on it for all the terrorists to atatck.... Yeah that's tactical...

Only a moron would demand to be told everything a country does....because they can't handle it and well, it's secret. Top Secret and need to know.

Which sheeple don't.

So how do you know then? If it is need to know, how did you ascertain this top secret information?

What has the example of Saddam done? Mugabe hasn't curbed his violent tendencies. The junta in Burma are still committing crimes against humanity. It was a piss poor example if thats what it was meant to be.

The Savannah River Site for uranium processing in the United States. One of many sites with materials for WMDs easily found in America.
Here [http://www.srs.gov/general/careers/careers1.htm] is their website, full of useful information, where you can even apply for a job.

The Sarghoda airbase in Pakistan, home of a missile launch site that has actually come under attack by Tailiban forces, who failed because they were attacking a highly secure facility.

That took me all of 30 seconds to Google. If I can find it, I think its safe to say the terrorists can.
Covering up supposed WMDs would be so futile as to be ridiculous. Its not that terrorists don't know where to get their hands on the materials for WMDs, its that fact that this shit is hard as fuck to get to. Its defended up the whazoo, because you can't keep it secret all the time. Leaks happen, even in the world of 'black ops', so the alternative is to keep it so protected that no one can get to it.

If WMDs had be found, once secured and safely defended, say, once they were back on US soil in a deep bunker, it would have been reported non-stop. The morale victory for a justification in the War in Iraq, for the Bush administration to be able to say "We were right, all along" would far outweigh the remote chance of a possible terrorist attack, on US soil against a secure military complex.

If the "terrorists" had the capability to successfully retrieve the materials for a WMD from a well defended site, they could have already done so at a dozen well known military sites in the US, Russia, Pakistan and India. But they don't. They know where they could get the materials, but they don't have the materiel, resources or personnel to pull it off. If they knew where these captured Iraqi WMDs were, it wouldn't matter. They couldn't touch them, and while they couldn't touch them, the Bush Administration could have been giving a flag-waving press release about how Iraq has become a justified conflict, with tangible results that would do wonders to help flagging support for the campaign over there.

Only and idiot would not use such an overwhelming and outstanding strategic moral and propaganda victory (that basically shoots the bottom out of the "US imperialist pig-dogs are just here for our oil" argument) because they were scared terrorists could penetrate a hardened facility.

I already explained to you that the comparison of Hitler does not fit, you're just Godwin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law]-ing by using it. If you insist though, then the Hitler comparison can also be thrown onto the Khmer Rouge: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge]

This organization is remembered primarily for its policy of social engineering and the deaths this caused. Its attempts at agricultural reform led to widespread famine, while its insistence on absolute self-sufficiency, even in the supply of medicine, led to the deaths of thousands from treatable diseases (such as malaria). Brutal and arbitrary executions and torture carried out by its cadres against perceived subversive elements, or during purges of its own ranks between 1976 and 1978, are considered to have constituted a genocide.

Now why was there no Coalition of the Willing to stop them? "Genoncide, the evil little act that should get everyone sniped." Yeah, they fit that category, but kept ruling till they ran Cambodia into the ground anyway.

You're going to need to base your argument on more than catch-phrases, here-say, and assumptions about 'black-ops'.

If you want to discuss this seriously, please read the whole post carefully and ask me if you want me to clarify, I'm more than happy to explain anything better.

 

[Carlston]

Honestly when you go that far just to be right?

You obviously have more experience than someone like myself who was in Iraq and briefed on things like this.

Bravo.... your so smart. Have a cookiee.

 

[Carlston]

Oh and btw, I really can't argue with what the military does out of the sight of the people. So yawn, and when you have facilities of WMD material, mortars are enough to breach the more shabby ones causing chem/bio or nuke material fallout. Why not only do we not tell the news we found them so google and cnn can tell the terrorists, it is kept secret.

Not everyone has a cell phone camera in the middle east. But like I said, I have no want to debate it with you. Because I really can bring myself to care...

But that is the best trolling I seen in a LONG time. You should get a A for ummmm.. yeah pointless reference to things not in the common knowledge or media base.

 

[Brett Alex]

Honestly when you go that far just to be right?

You obviously have more experience than someone like myself who was in Iraq and briefed on things like this.

Bravo.... your so smart. Have a cookiee.

Uh.. alright, I guess?

EDIT: No really, I have no idea what you're saying. This is the best you've been trolled? Or this is the best troll you've performed? And what do you mean by "media references not in common knowledge"?