IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
We did not go to Iraq to protect ourselves. By your argument, we we invaded Iraq 'to be sure' that they were not an indirect threat. That's a rather new and very low threshold.

There is nothing very indirect nor low in importance about preventing someone from detonating a nuke or starting a lethal plague in western cities. Milllions could die in such events, and yet you liberals consistently behave as though decisive action to prevent them is foolish.

The threat was indirect in that Saddam/Iraq posed no threat to us. The argument was that he could provide weapons to those who do pose a threat to us. What's low is the threshold of reasons we need before we feel justified in invading another country. Our invasion of Iraq did not prevent any of the things you mention.

I speak only for myself and not for all of 'us liberals' when I say the war in Iraq was indeed foolish and that it solved nothing and there was no justification for it. And the recent evidence shows that there was no justification for it.

0 Replies

I think you are altogether too enamored with these doomsday scenarios. Evidence that some group wants to do XYZ shouldn't be confused with evidence that the same group is actually capable of such feats. If desire and capability were one, you and I would be making U.S. policy instead of arguing on Internet forums Smile

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

When Al Qaeda deliberately spreads a genetically engineered hemorrhagic fever throughout the US (for example), the situation may become a little clearer to you.

...al Qaeda huh?
That's that Iraqi group right?

The reason for invading Iraq was not very much because of any connection they might have to terrorists. The reason for invading Iraq was because someone like Hussein ought not to be allowed to possess weapons of this sort. The ties he does have to terrorism didn't help any, but invading Iraq was not fundamentally a terrorism issues, it was a Saddam Hussein issue.

Nonetheless, Al Qaeda is also seeking WMD, and when they or someone else kills millions in the west by means of one or more WMD, I believe that the situation will be clearer to you than it now appears to be.

Brandon...I'm getting the feeling you're making this up as you go.
I can't handle your method of (ir)rationalizing.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

I'm not sure that this boils down to semantics at all. It's a question of how much evidence one needs before engaging in a major policy choice.

The amount of evidence one needs to act decisively to prevent a potential future tragedy depends on two factors: (1) The likelihood of the event, and (2) the seriousness of the event. The use of a WMD in a population center is about as serious an event as could be imagined. As I said in an earlier post, with certain types of WMD used in certain ways, you could get a death toll far exceeding what the tsunami caused in Asia.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

When Al Qaeda deliberately spreads a genetically engineered hemorrhagic fever throughout the US (for example), the situation may become a little clearer to you.

...al Qaeda huh?
That's that Iraqi group right?

The reason for invading Iraq was not very much because of any connection they might have to terrorists. The reason for invading Iraq was because someone like Hussein ought not to be allowed to possess weapons of this sort. The ties he does have to terrorism didn't help any, but invading Iraq was not fundamentally a terrorism issues, it was a Saddam Hussein issue.

Nonetheless, Al Qaeda is also seeking WMD, and when they or someone else kills millions in the west by means of one or more WMD, I believe that the situation will be clearer to you than it now appears to be.

Brandon...I'm getting the feeling you're making this up as you go.
I can't handle your method of (ir)rationalizing.

This is mere name calling. Either address the actual points I make or stop talking to me.

0 Replies

Brandon, even if Saddam had a nuke, why are you assuming that it would automatically explode. Quite a few assumptions underlie these mass-death scenarios. The "likelihood" of the event is based on more variables than you appear willing to consider.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
We did not go to Iraq to protect ourselves. By your argument, we we invaded Iraq 'to be sure' that they were not an indirect threat. That's a rather new and very low threshold.

There is nothing very indirect nor low in importance about preventing someone from detonating a nuke or starting a lethal plague in western cities. Milllions could die in such events, and yet you liberals consistently behave as though decisive action to prevent them is foolish.

The threat was indirect in that Saddam/Iraq posed no threat to us. The argument was that he could provide weapons to those who do pose a threat to us. What's low is the threshold of reasons we need before we feel justified in invading another country. Our invasion of Iraq did not prevent any of the things you mention.

I speak only for myself and not for all of 'us liberals' when I say the war in Iraq was indeed foolish and that it solved nothing and there was no justification for it. And the recent evidence shows that there was no justification for it.

And if a policeman frisks a suspect and doesn't find a gun, he was unjustified in frisking him.

0 Replies

In this case, someone pushed the policeman aside and shot the man.

0 Replies

1 litre of some of the chemicals Saddam was KNOWN to have had can kill thousands upon thousands of people. I don't believe the US main concern was over nukes Steppenwolf, so much as it was over some of the chemical and biological weapons Saddam had used previously and had not given a full accounting for prior to our invasion.

1 litre.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

Brandon, even if Saddam had a nuke, why are you assuming that it would automatically explode. Quite a few assumptions underlie these mass-death scenarios. The "likelihood" of the event is based on more variables than you appear willing to consider.

What is certain beyond question is this. As the technology of making nukes and bioweapons becomes easier and accessible to more entities, and less sophisticated entities, and more and more people get it, the probability goes up that one is going to be used. And even one use could cause a death toll on the scale of Hiroshima or even worse.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

In this case, someone pushed the policeman aside and shot the man.

The point is that because a danger is not found, it cannot be concluded that looking for it aggresively was not justified. The absence of WMD does not mean that going to great lengths to make sure that they were gone was unjustified.

0 Replies

McGentrix, that still doesn't provide any evidence that said hypothetical weapons were about to be delivered to terrorists or our doorsteps. In fact, he had those chemicals for decades, and the streets of New York and DC are still chemical free (well, more or less Smile

).

0 Replies

So I guess we better start destroying all of our WMD lest it fall into the wrong hands.

If our game plan is to rid the world of WMD, then, like I said, better start building up our military...

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

Brandon, even if Saddam had a nuke, why are you assuming that it would automatically explode. Quite a few assumptions underlie these mass-death scenarios. The "likelihood" of the event is based on more variables than you appear willing to consider.

Some of us chose not to give Saddam (the bloodthirsty madman) the benefit of the doubt that he was being honest, and preferred not to take the risk that he wasn't.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
In this case, someone pushed the policeman aside and shot the man.

The point is that because a danger is not found, it cannot be concluded that looking for it aggresively was not justified. The absence of WMD does not mean that going to great lengths to make sure that they were gone was unjustified.

What we did in Iraq was not an aggressive search for WMD. It was an invasion and occupation.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

So I guess we better start destroying all of our WMD lest it fall into the wrong hands.

If our game plan is to rid the world of WMD, then, like I said, better start building up our military...

And I said that the immediate game plan is not to rid the world of WMD, but that people like Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc., etc. cannot be permitted to possess them.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
In this case, someone pushed the policeman aside and shot the man.

The point is that because a danger is not found, it cannot be concluded that looking for it aggresively was not justified. The absence of WMD does not mean that going to great lengths to make sure that they were gone was unjustified.

What we did in Iraq was not an aggressive search for WMD. It was an invasion and occupation.

Actually, it was both, and it was justified.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

McGentrix, that still doesn't provide any evidence that said hypothetical weapons were about to be delivered to terrorists or our doorsteps. In fact, he had those chemicals for decades, and the streets of New York and DC are still chemical free (well, more or less ).

That's true enough, but how much longer could Saddam keep his Oil For Food cashcow running before he could no longer keep his baathist regime running? At that time Saddam could have started selling his weapons to terrorists who had tons of money and would be willing to pay a substantial amount of money for WMD's. He was a known supporter of various terror organizations. He was known to have WMD's. Why is it so hard to imagine an evil man perpetrating an evil act such as selling/giving WMD's to terrorists?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Brandon...I'm getting the feeling you're making this up as you go.
I can't handle your method of (ir)rationalizing.

This is mere name calling. Either address the actual points I make or stop talking to me.[/quote]

Brandon, people have been addressing the points and it seems clear that you believe everything this administration has told you vis a vis Iraq and Saddam Hussein even in the face of hard evidence to the contrary.
What I have done is not name calling. I'm making an assertion regarding the dialogue you have presented thus far.
The reason I have done so is because your argument mirrors that of said administration. It has migrated along the Bushian migratory path that defies both common sense, logic and lies somewhere in the small border town between paranoia and dementia praecox.

Bottom line is this:
We have all been fed identical information, we have just processed the threat, perceived or real, in a different manner, and seek a different means to (probably) the same end.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
We did not go to Iraq to protect ourselves. By your argument, we we invaded Iraq 'to be sure' that they were not an indirect threat. That's a rather new and very low threshold.

There is nothing very indirect nor low in importance about preventing someone from detonating a nuke or starting a lethal plague in western cities. Milllions could die in such events, and yet you liberals consistently behave as though decisive action to prevent them is foolish.

The threat was indirect in that Saddam/Iraq posed no threat to us. The argument was that he could provide weapons to those who do pose a threat to us. What's low is the threshold of reasons we need before we feel justified in invading another country. Our invasion of Iraq did not prevent any of the things you mention.

I speak only for myself and not for all of 'us liberals' when I say the war in Iraq was indeed foolish and that it solved nothing and there was no justification for it. And the recent evidence shows that there was no justification for it.

And if a policeman frisks a suspect and doesn't find a gun, he was unjustified in frisking him.

Say there's two guys. One is an ex-con, who is now on house arrest. The other one is always in trouble, but hasn't been caught. This second guy knocks over a liquor store. The police know he did it, but they can't find him, so they go to guy #1's house, bust the door down and start ripping up his house looking for a gun, based on the fact that he's done stuff like this before. Is this okay with you too?

0 Replies

IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know