Some Common, Bad Arguments for the Recent U.S. Policy Towar

Alright, I will, but it was a "coulda been" regarding doomsday weapons in the hands of a madman, which he coulda used to re-invade Kuwait and other neighbors, and kill millions, including residents of American cities. Seems to me checking out a significant probability of a monumental disaster, possibly involving millions of deaths and the subjugation of millions more in the Middle East to Saddam Hussein was a valid reason to go to war. Seems to me that this is the purpose of the military.

Note to Drew Dad: Not only do I know the steps, but I've answered this precise question regarding the purpose of risking American soldiers, numerous times on this board.

You mean amongst the people that hate the President, right?

You mean amongst the people that hate the President, right?

Quote:

Alright, I will, but it was a "coulda been" regarding doomsday weapons in the hands of a madman, which he coulda used to re-invade Kuwait and other neighbors, and kill millions, including residents of American cities. Seems to me checking out a significant probability of a monumental disaster, possibly involving millions of deaths and the subjugation of millions more in the Middle East to Saddam Hussein was a valid reason to go to war. Seems to me that this is the purpose of the military.

This sounds reasonable enough, but it is all a lie. Saddam didn't have these weapons. There was never any credible evidence that he had nuclear weapons, and bio and chem weapons, while terrible, probably wouldn't kill millions of people. Saddam had zero chance of striking here in America, so that's a false canard.

Any ruler or madman 'could have' weapons capable of the destruction that you cause. It isn't license to go around invading the world and causing destruction ourselves.

Cycloptichorn

You mean amongst the people that hate the President, right?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Note to Drew Dad: Not only do I know the steps, but I've answered this precise question regarding the purpose of risking American soldiers, numerous times on this board.

You've rationalized your position ("I'm afraid of the boogieman; he could have turned invisible when you looked in the closet, so you can't prove he wasn't there"). No one else finds it persuasive, however.

If he didn't have both some WMD and research facililities to develop certain others, then why did he promise by treaty to destroy them? Hussein had much more than zero chance of striking America. All he would have needed to do was smuggle the weapons into the US in pieces and reassemble them here. One nuclear or bioweapon probably couldn't kill millions of people, but several could. We are not talking about some guy who might in theory have WMD of which there was no evidence. We are talking about Saddam Hussein, who had had WMD and research facilities to develop more, and had signed a treaty promising to destroy them. You don't invade the kingdom of an evil madman because he might simply in theory have doomsday weapons, but you ought to if he has had them and facilities to improve them, and has failed to adhere to a treaty to destroy them.

All he would have needed to do was smuggle the weapons into the US in pieces and reassemble them here.

McGentrix wrote:

You mean amongst the people that hate the President, right?

Are you saying that you do find Brandon's position convincing?

I already know Saddam had WMD's prior to the invasion, of that I need no further convincing.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh

"A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org).

"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.
"

Sure, his upcoming book has nothing to do with the fact that this story is getting a lot of play on your side of the fence. It doesn't give him a reason to lie, either, nah.

You really believe this dreck?

Cycloptichorn