It's time for Rumsfeld to go

Brandon's quote, "The use of a very few WMD within the US could kill an unimaginable number of people and make us a 3rd world country for a long time." Just who do you think is going to deliver those WMDs to the US and use it against us? There are over 170 countries in this world, and some organizations like al Qaida that has no "country" as their base. Just who do you propose we attack next to control WMDs?

0 Replies

Brandon,

When there are on-going inspections to avoid someone like Hussein stockpiling weapons, peaceful means haven't been exhausted.

The US administration created the drama that led the US to war...there was no immediate threat.

Take a look at some of Farmerman's posts regarding the creation of WMD and how easily detectable it is.

0 Replies

Why do we have to attack anyone? Why can't we peacefully persuade cooperating countries to arrest terrorists within their borders and turn over or destroy all their WMD? This would include Syria destroying all of Saddam's WMD that they have buried in the Bakaa Valley.

0 Replies

Hmmm. It's gotta be North Korea, I guess, c.i.

Oh wait, we can't attack them; they'll fight back.

OK, I give up. Who do we attack next? Syria, maybe? They're weak, have dark brown skin and probably have Saddam's WMDs...

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon's quote, "The use of a very few WMD within the US could kill an unimaginable number of people and make us a 3rd world country for a long time." Just who do you think is going to deliver those WMDs to the US and use it against us? There are over 170 countries in this world, and some organizations like al Qaida that has no "country" as their base. Just who do you propose we attack next to control WMDs?

First of all, you have not denied this statement. Do you believe that, in fact, no such danger exists? What does it matter whether I can predict which group will do it? If you allow people like Hussein to obtain these weapons, either they will do it themselves, or they will sell the weapons to someone else like Al Qaida who will do it. As to who I propose to attack next, I believe that I have answered that quite clearly. When a latter day Hitler type, such as Hussein, attempts to obtain the weapons, first we try to get him to stop peacefully, and if it looks like that has failed, we may ultimately have to use force.

0 Replies

Danger exists when we walk across the street or drive in our cars. That doesn't mean we kill all drivers or owners of cars; but maybe you do. They are a real threat; they kill more people every year than any wars.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Hmmm. It's gotta be North Korea, I guess, c.i.

Oh wait, we can't attack them; they'll fight back.

OK, I give up. Who do we attack next? Syria, maybe? They're weak, have dark brown skin and probably have Saddam's WMDs...

Oh, with North Korea, it's rather more serious than a matter of them fighting back, isn't it? If they do have nukes, as they claim, they could obliterate South Korea entirely, and possibly in mere minutes. I have answered several times now who we fight next. When a person of the nature of a Saddam Hussein attempts to accumulate these weapons, we attempt to get him to stop peacefully, but ultimately he must be stopped, even if military means have to be used. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from achieving the kind of invulnerability that North Korea now posseses.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Danger exists when we walk across the street or drive in our cars. That doesn't mean we kill all drivers or owners of cars; but maybe you do. They are a real threat; they kill more people every year than any wars.

When we walk across the street or drive in our cars, we may be involved in an automobile accident. When we allow a latter day Hitler to accumulate WMD, millions of lives may be extinguished overnight or nearly so.

0 Replies

Brandon, Owning WMDs is much easier than using them. We just don't know who will use it first; you can't go around killing everybody that has WMDs. FYI, the US stockpiles most forms of WMDs in great quantity. What's not to say that all other countries fear the US's use against them? They have every right to attack the US first - using your logic of "fear" or "threat."

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Brandon,

When there are on-going inspections to avoid someone like Hussein stockpiling weapons, peaceful means haven't been exhausted.

The US administration created the drama that led the US to war...there was no immediate threat.

Take a look at some of Farmerman's posts regarding the creation of WMD and how easily detectable it is.

Many believed that a dozen years of playing cat and mouse with Hussein was enough. I do not know whether or not Hussein had WMD a month before we invaded. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I only know that he had had them, had lied about them, and used them, and that he might very well have still had them. With weapons of this sort, which really pose the risk of the effective destruction of the US, we have to be pretty careful.

0 Replies

tarantulas says, "Why can't we peacefully persuade cooperating countries to arrest terrorists within their borders and turn over or destroy all their WMD?"

Sounds good to me, and now that we know there are no WMD's in Iraq, we can't really justify having 140,000 troops there at a cost of $4 billion a month.

On to North Korea.

0 Replies

The threat, Brandon, will come from the same place it has for the past several years: the nuts who can build bombs and blow things up around us.

Many of those were Caucasians, BTW; Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh.

Saddam's WMD biodegraded after the first Gulf War and he was unable to rebuild his cache, as everyone with an ounce of sense understands now.

Whatever threat he was, he was in no position to attack us.

With the exception of North Korea I see no nation-state that poses the US a threat.

So, following your theory, when do we invade North Korea?

Kim is starving his countrymen, possesses nukes, and threatens everyone, including the US.

Don't you think it's past time to disarm him?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, Owning WMDs is much easier than using them. We just don't know who will use it first; you can't go around killing everybody that has WMDs. FYI, the US stockpiles most forms of WMDs in great quantity. What's not to say that all other countries fear the US's use against them? They have every right to attack the US first - using your logic of "fear" or "threat."

Certainly someone who owns WMD may be able to use them, and it's likely the effect would be a huge number of deaths. I believe that the preferred method of doing so would be to smuggle the components into the target country and set it off from inside. As for the idea of everyone attacking everyone, I have consistently made it clear that I am saying that someone in the nature of a modern day Hitler cannot have them, not that no one can, although world disarmament would be desirable.

0 Replies

"Being careful" means not killing innocent people without having incontrovertible proof that somebody has WMDs they are ready to use against the American People. You can't use the argument about "Saddam was ready to use" when the UN had inspectors in Iraq looking for WMDs. There is no justification to start a war when Saddam had no way of using WMDs against the American People. Saddam had no way of using rockets for delivery, didn't have any way to "fly" them to any destination outside the no-fly zone, and we had inspectors in Iraq. He was contained.

0 Replies

Just to stir the pot a bit, it might help if the USA got out of the arms business and stopped selling this stuff to unstable countries like Iraq.

Jees, then Rumfeld might have to delete a few things on his CV! LOL!!!

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

The threat, Brandon, will come from the same place it has for the past several years: the nuts who can build bombs and blow things up around us.

Many of those were Caucasians, BTW; Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh.

Saddam's WMD biodegraded after the first Gulf War and he was unable to rebuild his cache, as everyone with an ounce of sense understands now.

Whatever threat he was, he was in no position to attack us.

With the exception of North Korea I see no nation-state that poses the US a threat.

So, following your theory, when do we invade North Korea?

Kim is starving his countrymen, possesses nukes, and threatens everyone, including the US.

Don't you think it's past time to disarm him?

I wish you would stop talking about race, since it is a total red herring that I have never raised nor would raise. As for your assessment of Hussein's situation, the state of his weapons program was unknown to us at the time we invaded. He had had them, had used them, and had lied about them, and no one knew whether he still did or not. As to the question about North Korea, we do not invade because if they have what they say they do, they could kill millions immediately. You say that you see no nation-state that poses a threat to us except for Korea. I say that as the ante to enter the nuclear club goes down, more people of the caliber of a Hussein will attempt to obtain WMD, and will have to be stopped from doing so.

0 Replies

infowarrior wrote:

Just to stir the pot a bit, it might help if the USA got out of the arms business and stopped selling this stuff to unstable countries like Iraq.

Jees, then Rumfeld might have to delete a few things on his CV! LOL!!!

Interesting. Who are we selling WMD to?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Being careful" means not killing innocent people without having incontrovertible proof that somebody has WMDs they are ready to use against the American People. You can't use the argument about "Saddam was ready to use" when the UN had inspectors in Iraq looking for WMDs. There is no justification to start a war when Saddam had no way of using WMDs against the American People. Saddam had no way of using rockets for delivery, didn't have any way to "fly" them to any destination outside the no-fly zone, and we had inspectors in Iraq. He was contained.

You misunderstand me. I believe the preferred delivery method would be to smuggle the weapons into the target country. It would be stupid to use rockets for delivery, since it would make it obvious who was responsible. At the time we invaded, it was very unclear whether Hussein had destroyed all of his WMD or not. Many thought he had not. You are referring to knowledge that is available after the fact, and it's not that certain anyway. He well might have had the weapons until our invasion became imminent. The UN inspectors had been looking for WMD in Iraq for more than a decade. Sometimes the inspectors would be kept waiting with no explanation to enter a facility while the weapons were taken out the back. The inspectors did not seem to me to be that effeactive. As for your suggestion that we cannot morally invade a hideous dictatorship without incontrovertible proof that the dictator has stockpiled WMD, I disagree. With weapons of this unimaginable power, we cannot wait for absolute certainty, because it might come in the form of a mushroom cloud rising over what used to be New York.

0 Replies

Brandon, You keep mentioning Hitler. FYI he's been dead for over half a century. What you're talking about is "fiction." Hitler tried to control the world with his military. Which country leader today is in a position to do what Hitler did in the early part of the last century?

0 Replies

Brandon,

You act like they are just packing the weapons in a suitcase and walking out the backdoor with them, like they're a take-out pizza or something. I don't think this is the case. Even with pizza you can't really sneak the oven out the backdoor without someone out front noticing.

0 Replies

It's time for Rumsfeld to go

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know