JPB wrote:Brandon9000 wrote: Also, as the president stated numerous times, the invasion was primarily motivated by a sense that if Hussein had merely taken his former WMD development programs further underground, it might soon spell a catastrophe for the world.
That's a mighty
if, Brandon. We now have 3,000 dead American soldiers and more than 22,000 wounded. Soldiers who have served multiple tours in Afghanistan and been discharged from the military are now being recalled for additional tours to Iraq. All on an
if and what that if
might soon spell?
No, it was just an "if," since he had indeed once had such programs and attempted to conceal them from inspectors. Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, he might well have merely hidden them better. One single nuke of the sort a country like Iraq might realistically produce could kill hundreds of thousands of people. A nuclear Hussein, or one with serious bioweapons might have come to dominate a big piece of the middle east.
JPB wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:It will certainly happen many more times in the future that an odious dictator, with or without a friendly relationship to terrorists, is trying to develop WMD, but that information about it is sketchy. Saddam Hussein was not a unique case, but the tip of the forthcoming iceberg. We'd better decide how we plan to handle it, because it's going to keep happening.
Well, we certainly got it wrong this time. Just for grins, let's try something else next time. This is about American lives being lost over sketchy info on what odious folks are doing. How 'bout getting up close and personal, with or without nose plugs?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but the only sense in which we got it wrong this time was not anticipating the insurgency. Invasion was necessary based on the real possibility that Iraq still had those programs. If, indeed, the next time this happens we don't invade, and an awful, ambitious dictator, friendly to terrorists, gains access to nukes, it could be the worst event in modern history. For example, New York might be obliterated as part of the series of resultant events.
JPB wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:If they proliferate to everyone who wants them, they will certainly eventually be used.
Then maybe we should pay a little more attention to not pissing off everyone who wants them to the point where they'd rather see us as part of mushroom cloud fallout. What do you suggest Brandon? Or do you think we've actually accomplished something positive in our efforts to thwart the potential for boogie-men everywhere from getting their hands on WMD?
Whether we piss people off or not, if WMD proliferate widely, the world is headed back to the stone age, or at least to the greatest catastrophe since the bubonic plague. When dozens of countries have nukes, particularly small, unstable dictatorships, they will certainly be used. How do you figure this real possibility of doomsday is a "boogie-man ?"
Blame America no matter what, right?
