Originally posted by GoppelDanger:
Why aren't we invading Syria?

Because we lack proof and the last time we went into someplace to kick ass and take names on "proof" that every intelligence agency on the planet possessed and agreed upon, we got burned...

The piss-poor shape that the CIA is in now should give a solid indication of why that even Rumsfeld (who I particularly don't care for) has become a damn-cautious fellow compared to the hard-charging, damn the torpedoes, ass-kicker he was during the first term.

Say what you will about the Bush administration, but they did learn one thing from the first term and that's not to f**k up their second term due to intel that hasn't been scrubbed, verified and backed up by the Word of God, Allah and the Devil agreeing with both of his enemies on it...

Originally posted by GoppelDanger:
If they where the same weapons that we ousted Saddam for, why haven't we marched right over and kicked Bashar to the ground?

For someone who is against all this "liberal media crap" you sure like to watch it. Where did you hear about these "sources" that said WMD's where in Syria?



The FACT stands that there are TONS of missing toxins that were cataloged by the UN and nobody knows where in the Hell they are. Nobody that is even remotely educated about Iraq's WMD programs disputes this iron-clad fact that official tallies have come up WAY short.

The reason they come up short is where the ghost of speculation jumps in and makes guesses: most are based off of rumors and are just that at this point. Syria as a "port of call" for some of the missing WMD is one that refuses to die. Others position that Russia came in and moved it out of the country, etc., etc. The last thing I remember about it was that US estimates said that any remaining WMD in Iraq was probably NOT moved to Syria, but it refused to speculate where in the Hell it could have gone...

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe