cicerone imposter wrote:
1. Saddam Hussein had developed WMD and had active programs to perfect more before we interrupted them.
No WMDs have been found.
This is known precisely because we invaded to determine it.
cicerone imposter wrote:2. He had attempted to annex neighbors.
That was ten years earlier. He was removed.
The point was that his behavior indicates his character, and his propensity for annexing neighbors would make him a grave danger should he perfect his WMD.
cicerone imposter wrote:3. He had killed enough people on purpose to give one the idea that he did not hold the lives of others in much esteem.
You are again talking about past history. Our trade ban killed more Iraqi people since then.
No, he continued murdering and torturing his people right up to the end. This shows what I intended to show, which is that he cannot be expected to hold life as being of value, which would make him very dangerous should he perfect his WMD arsenal.
cicerone imposter wrote:4. He had lied about his WMD, and inspectors had been prevented from entering certain sites before Iraq could "sanitize" them.
That's the reason why the UN weapon's inspectors were trying to locate them.
My point was that protestations by him that he had destroyed them could not, prior to invasion, be taken as reliable, since he had a history of hiding them and lying about them.
cicerone imposter wrote:5. The totality of the history left great doubt that he had destroyed his WMD and programs, yet, somehow lacked convincing evidence of it.
Lack of evidence is not proof. Never go to a court of law and try to convince the jury on "lack of evidence."
He was required to show affirmatively, verifiably that he had destroyed them. Furthermore, this isn't court. It was our attempt to keep someone from killing a mammoth number of our people a few years down the road.
cicerone imposter wrote:6. Even a single WMD of many types can cause death on a massive scale.
We have those people in the US of A. Yes, WMDs can kill on a massive scale. We have them, and have used them on other countries including Japan and Vietnam.
We used them on Japan in WW2, we did not use the sort of WMD I am referring to in Vietnam. I am talking about the more powerful sorts of bioweapons or nukes, of such power that one use of one weapon one time can kill a hundred thousand people. We sure didn't use anything like that in Vietnam. All irrelevant anyway. What we did or didn't do with our WMD will not serve to protect us if an enemy acquires WMD and can sneak them into our cities.
cicerone imposter wrote:That is real danger.
All in your head. Try looking at the statistics on how many are killed on our highways and streets every single day of the week.
How could that be interpreted as a reason for us not taking steps to prevent someone from nuking Los Angeles out of existence?
