Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

And this headline .. .

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2301861

"In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before," former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a letter that asked for donations to the Republican National Committee.

 

[Don Roley]

Present your argument. I'm listening.

Well, I gave an argument and you posted something completely unrelated to it right afterwards.

Does this mean that you accept that there is a credible argument, or are you just trying to ignore the issue now?

 

[FearlessFreep]

So this is the 'Because I said so' argument?

No, because I don't have an argument to give you. All I have are ideas that I mull over in my head that I think could be rational, but none that I think are definitive to say "yes, I believe that to be the answer", much less try to convince anyone else.

Howeveer when you call it a "$250M...Fiasco" and then ask for a 'credible argument', in light of all else you've said here, I am highly doubtful than anyone could present an argument that you would admit to being 'credible'

and for what it's worth I'm not really thrilled with how things have gone over there myself.

 

[michaeledward]

Then perhaps you just don't want to hear the answer.
Some folks such as yourself have tried to say that unless Iraqi tanks could roll across New York that Hussein was not a threat to the US.
But what about biological weapons? How much does it take to develop it and then sneak it into a country via a diplomatic pouch?
Before I go on, I would point out that if you shoot someone you need to tell the officer that shows up why you did by pointing out that you believed the other guy had the means, intent and oppurtunity to attack and kill you. If you apply that here, then you can see that Hussein should have been blown away.
America did have an anthrax attack on its soil. Thank goodness it was not something more deadly like smallpox.
But the key thing is, whoever did it got away clean. We still do not know who did it.
We know Hussein was in love with bio weapon programs. He ran a program right under the noses of the UN inspectors and we were only aware of it when his son- in- law defected and blew the lid off if it.
And we know that France, China and Russia were doing all they can to get rid of the sanctions and inspectors so that they could start making money off of Hussein as soon as possible. Even without the eventual and inevitable lifting of the constaints on him, he was making billions off of ileagle trade with the help of a lot of people.
And we know that he had cut- outs in the form of terrorists that owed him favors. I know where you might go with this so I will say that these guys were not Al Queda. But they were terorists, they were willing to die for a cause and they hated America with a passion.
And Hussein was a guy that got his head handed to him by America in one war and yet still thought he could out smart and out fight them the second time. We could not bet that he would not think that he could do something like a biological attack on the US and get away with it.
Oh, and you don't launch smallpox against a goverment. You launch it against a people. If he gave guns to terrorists they could aim them at him. But unless they were willing to kill off millions of innocent Muslims, they could not use smallpox in Iraq. But they would gleefully use them in America.
If you put yourself in his shoes when he saw that someone got away with attacking the US with biological weapons, can you honestly say that he probably did not think about doing the same? Are you willing to bet with millions of American lives that he would decline from doing so? Some folks we can reach and convince to not do things like that or else face our wrath. But Hussein thought he could beat us in two different wars despite all the evidence to the contrary.
So it was a very real risk that Hussein would get the UN controls lifted on him in time because of the three members of the security council that wanted to make money off of him, he would then be able to get dual use medical supplies that could be used for biological warfare and then use his contacts with terrorists to launch those weapons on America.
Sure it would not go over in a court of law as something to convict someone. But I would use it in a defense if I had to shoot someone and be on good legal ground. And I am sure that there are people who will demand 100 percent proof that someone is about to launch an attack on the US before they would condone violence against them. I say that such people are soft on defense since that might be too late and we may never know until after the attacks like 9-11 and the anthrax cases.
But I don't think you should expect the president to say these reasons out loud. Can you imagine the politacal hell that would follow if he went on the air to announce the following?
You can imagine how that would go over in Moscow, Paris and Beijing.
It is not a case where we would have proof of something. But it is a case where we can see that Hussein had the intent to do the US harm, had the means in the near future after the sanctions was lifted and had the oppurtunity by way of his terrorist contacts. He was a danger. And we could not take the chance that he would not do something like this after all the things he has done in the past.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Don Roley ... Thank you for presenting an argument.
FearlessFreep is correct. I do not find this argument credible as the opposing scale for a 250 Million Dollar A Day war in Iraq that has made the United States less safe, become a training ground for terrorists, and a recruitment tool for al Qaeda type organizations.
Let me break down some of your arguments .... with my opposing point of view. I generally don't like to break down arguments in this manner, but I ask that you indulge me, as a refutation of claims made by you and others.

Some folks such as yourself have tried to say that unless Iraqi tanks could roll across New York that Hussein was not a threat to the US.

If Iraq had any tanks left, after the highway of death, it is severely unlikely they posed any threat to United States or our allies ... (assuming our allies need our defense against the limp Iraqi military).

But what about biological weapons? How much does it take to develop it and then sneak it into a country via a diplomatic pouch?

In late 2002 and early 2003, the United Nations Weapons Inspectors, UNMOVIC, were searching all of Iraqi facilities for evidence of Biological Weapons. They searched over 700 facilities - locations provided to them by United States Intelligence Services - and found nothing. UNMOVIC indicated that with several more weeks of investigations, they would be able to state with as much certainty as possible, that Iraq did not have any Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear weapons, or weapons programs.
The Bush Administration would not acceed to the United Nations Inspectors. Instead, President Bush informed the United Nations he was going to launch an attack, and that for their own safety, the Inspectors should leave Iraq.
Subsequently, we have learned, through two years of United States Inspections, that Saddam Hussein's military did not have any Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear Weapons.
We might have discovered that, had we practiced a few weeks of patience.

Before I go on, I would point out that if you shoot someone you need to tell the officer that shows up why you did by pointing out that you believed the other guy had the means, intent and oppurtunity to attack and kill you. If you apply that here, then you can see that Hussein should have been blown away.

This simplistic question begs the question ... what if 'the other guy' did not have the means, intent or opportunity ... but is still lying dead on the road?

America did have an anthrax attack on its soil. Thank goodness it was not something more deadly like smallpox.
But the key thing is, whoever did it got away clean. We still do not know who did it.

I do not understand how this series of facts furthers an argument that our invasion and occupation of Iraq is in the National Defense. Rather, it seems to further the argument, that we started chasing the wrong target. And now we have gotten ourselves stuck, unable to turn our attention to the correct targets.

We know Hussein was in love with bio weapon programs. He ran a program right under the noses of the UN inspectors and we were only aware of it when his son- in- law defected and blew the lid off if it.
And we know that France, China and Russia were doing all they can to get rid of the sanctions and inspectors so that they could start making money off of Hussein as soon as possible. Even without the eventual and inevitable lifting of the constaints on him, he was making billions off of ileagle trade with the help of a lot of people.

How, exactly do we know what Hussein was 'in love' with? What evidence do you have for such a statement. I find it ridiculous on its face.
Yes, in the early and mid 90's, there were ongoing programs in Iraq that were discovered with the collaboration of an Iraqi traitor. Those programs were destroyed.
Again, the Inspectors in Iraq in 2002 and 2003 had inspected locations based on our best intelligence and came up empty handed. Unrequited love - I guess.
..... So, we can't allow France China and Russia to make money by trading with Iraq. But, we can invade, and fleece the American public (now and in the future) to enrich Halliburton and Lockheed Martin. Weren't we promised cheap oil as a benefit for removing Hussein? How did that work out for us?

And we know that he had cut- outs in the form of terrorists that owed him favors. I know where you might go with this so I will say that these guys were not Al Queda. But they were terorists, they were willing to die for a cause and they hated America with a passion.

Saddam Hussein, and the government of Iraq did support the Palestinians, and the Lebanese against Israeli occupation. Any terrorists that Hussein might have supported did not have the global reach, which was the phrase the President used.
I believe there are legitimate greivences among the people in that region of the world. I do not know what the best way to address the situation. But to pretend there are not real greivences is to be willfully blind.
Lastly, the statement that those fighting in Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon 'hate America' needs to be supported. It may be true that there are some who are displeased with America's seeming blind support of Israel. The 'Your With Us or Against Us' mentality of the current administration, quite probably, goes a long way to further the hostile sentiment.

And Hussein was a guy that got his head handed to him by America in one war and yet still thought he could out smart and out fight them the second time.

How's this second time working out for us?
It seems to me, that President Hussein said that if America invaded Iraq, it would become another Vietnam for us. Now I may be mis-remembering this quote. I have searched for it a couple of times, because sadly, that seems to be what our invasion has become.
How long will it be before the helicopters are pulling the last American troops from the rooftops of the Green Zone?

We could not bet that he would not think that he could do something like a biological attack on the US and get away with it.
Oh, and you don't launch smallpox against a goverment. You launch it against a people. If he gave guns to terrorists they could aim them at him. But unless they were willing to kill off millions of innocent Muslims, they could not use smallpox in Iraq. But they would gleefully use them in America.

There did not need to be any bet. There was no need for gambling. The world community had the best minds available searching Iraq for the Weapons you are so afraid of, and they were coming up empty. Given a few more weeks of inspection, they could have said with as much certainty as possible that Iraq did not have smallpox, or anthrax.
Were the demands at the end of the Gulf War about declaring Iraq WMD free ... or about removing a President we did not approve of?

Sure it would not go over in a court of law as something to convict someone. But I would use it in a defense if I had to shoot someone and be on good legal ground. And I am sure that there are people who will demand 100 percent proof that someone is about to launch an attack on the US before they would condone violence against them. I say that such people are soft on defense since that might be too late and we may never know until after the attacks like 9-11 and the anthrax cases.

On August 6, 2001, the President was handed a memo stating that Osama Bin Laden was determined to Strike In the United States. What's more, two operatives from the Central Intelligence Agency flew down to Crawford, Texas to tell him this was the real deal. As I understand it, President Bush told these operatives, that they had "covered their asses".
In August 2001, against a real threat, it was not sufficient evidence to do anything. It was a 'historical document', according to our National Security Director.
But, despite the Administrations lack of action then, you are using it as an argument to justify the invasion of a country that did not threaten the United States.
The bloody body lying in front of you was no threat. What should a court of law do then?

It is not a case where we would have proof of something. But it is a case where we can see that Hussein had the intent to do the US harm, had the means in the near future after the sanctions was lifted and had the oppurtunity by way of his terrorist contacts. He was a danger. And we could not take the chance that he would not do something like this after all the things he has done in the past.

But, we could have had proof ... if we had a bit of patience. Our questions about Iraq's non-conventional weapons would have been sufficiently answered.
You claim that Hussein intended to do the US harm. How do you justify this? As I understand my history, he informed the United States he was going to retake the 19th province of Iraq in 1991, and believed he received a 'green light' from our ambassador. After that, the argument can as easily be made that he wanted revenge for the American betrayal. I think a more cogent argument is that Hussein wanted the respect of the United States, and the other states in his region.
Don Roley, I believe all of your argument is comes down to 'we want him to be a danger to us', because there is little evidence that he ever posed a threat to the continental United States. Yes - he posed a threat to Israel. But, in 2002 and 2003, we were in the process of ensuring tha threat was not chemical, biological or nuclear.
How many other leaders can we not take a chance about? And now that our military is completely trapped in Iraq, how can we properly address any threats that might arise?
The war in Iraq has made the United States less secure. It has become a training ground for terrorists, as we see the tactics leanred in Iraq spread to Afghanistan. It has added a heavy debt to our country in money, and lives, and livelyhoods.
Thank you, Don Roley, for the discussion.

 

[FearlessFreep]

> >Some folks such as yourself have tried to say that unless Iraqi tanks could roll across New York that Hussein was not a threat to the US.

If Iraq had any tanks left, after the highway of death, it is severely unlikely they posed any threat to United States or our allies ... (assuming our allies need our defense against the limp Iraqi military).

Why did you refute a sarcastic quip?

One thought in all this is that there a difference between 'credible argument' for understanding *why* something was done and a 'credible argument' that it actually should've been done.

To go with the analogy presented:"I killed him because I thought he was a threat to me, although in the end he wasn't" This is credible in the first sense of the meaning if you have sufficient evidence that argues that you beleived he represented a threat but it is not credible in the second sense of the meaning in that the person ended up dead because you made a mistake.

Don is, largely, arguing from the first sense of the meaning that we thought he had a knife and Michael is, largely arguing that we were wrong to attack because he didn't have a knife. And like all such encounters it runs into the problem of the immediacy of "I don't have time to think...do I dare (attack or not)?" versus the 20/20 hindsight of "there was another way..."

 

[michaeledward]

Why did you refute a sarcastic quip?

There is no sarcasm intended in my response.

The Highway of Death is the common phrase for the destruction of the retreating Iraqi military. In two attacks, the United States military destroyed close to 2,000 Iraqi military vehicles.

That Don Roley would claim that these tanks would roll through New York, after these destructive attacks, and 12 years of sactions, which prevented replacement parts for any vehicles that may have escaped destruction there, or elsewhere, creates a StrawMan argument.

One thought in all this is that there a difference between 'credible argument' for understanding *why* something was done and a 'credible argument' that it actually should've been done.

To go with the analogy presented:"I killed him because I thought he was a threat to me, although in the end he wasn't" This is credible in the first sense of the meaning if you have sufficient evidence that argues that you beleived he represented a threat but it is not credible in the second sense of the meaning in that the person ended up dead because you made a mistake.

Don is, largely, arguing from the first sense of the meaning that we thought he had a knife and Michael is, largely arguing that we were wrong to attack because he didn't have a knife. And like all such encounters it runs into the problem of the immediacy of "I don't have time to think...do I dare (attack or not)?" versus the 20/20 hindsight of "there was another way..."

The argument presented in the analogy above, is also false. For a number of reasons, not the least of which is the scope of the event. You can not scale up the proposed reasoning - an individual potential threat - to an invasion and occupation. The logic falls apart.

But, even arguing against this poor analogy, we did have the opportunity to spend the time to determine if the threat was credible, or not. And the Administration, for reasons unknown, choose not to take the time to make that determination.

We can review what the Administration proposed as reasons why the invasion of Iraq needed to proceed, but they a) do not hold up under experience and evidence and b) shift over time.

 

[Don Roley]

I suppose that there is no way Michealward can accept that someone who ran biological warfare programs even while the UN was serching for them in their country and who would soon probably be free of all inspections would possibly start up one again. The inspectors could have found no proof of a bio war program, the sanctions would be lifted and we are to expect that Hussein would not start it up again and find a way to use them against the US.

I do believe he missed all the points I tried to make about what Hussein would have done after France, China and Russia would have gotten what they wanted and lifted all the restrictions that had been in place. I just don't know if it is an honest mistake on his part or not.

 

[Don Roley]

That Don Roley would claim that these tanks would roll through New York, after these destructive attacks, and 12 years of sactions, which prevented replacement parts for any vehicles that may have escaped destruction there, or elsewhere, creates a StrawMan argument.

I did not claim that. You are being decietful and putting words in my mouth.

It is you who are using the straw man argument. This is my exact quote,

Some folks such as yourself have tried to say that unless Iraqi tanks could roll across New York that Hussein was not a threat to the US.

But I then pointed out how biological weapons could be a threat. It is a straw man argument that unless Iraqui tanks can reach the US, that they are not a threat to us.

And you seem to be purposefully trying to twist what I say to make it sound like I said that tanks could make it to the US. Can you please try to debate in a more honest manner?

 

[michaeledward]

I did not claim that. You are being decietful and putting words in my mouth.

It is you who are using the straw man argument. This is my exact quote,



But I then pointed out how biological weapons could be a threat. It is a straw man argument that unless Iraqui tanks can reach the US, that they are not a threat to us.

And you seem to be purposefully trying to twist what I say to make it sound like I said that tanks could make it to the US. Can you please try to debate in a more honest manner?

Well then, could you please make your arguments, and not what you think my arguments were, are, or are going to be.

You did say that ... "Some folks such as yourself have tried to say that unless Iraqi tanks could roll across New York that Hussein was not a threat to the US." ... didn't you?

Please show me where I have made that argument?
Please show me where 'folks such as myself', have made that arguement?

 

[Don Roley]

Well then, could you please make your arguments, and not what you think my arguments were, are, or are going to be.

You did say that ... "Some folks such as yourself have tried to say that unless Iraqi tanks could roll across New York that Hussein was not a threat to the US." ... didn't you?

Please show me where I have made that argument?
Please show me where 'folks such as myself', have made that arguement?

Now you are ducking the issue. You just got through talking about how the tanks could not be a threat to us and now you are trying to distance yourself from it.

The whole idea that Hussein had no conventional means of attacking the US has been used time and time again as a straw man argument to say that he was no threat to us.

But there are biological weapons which he ran programs for. And it is another straw man argument to say that just because he did not have a program at the time of his defeat that he would never start another one up again.

Looking at his pattern of behavior, it is reasonable to believe that he would have started up a program just as soon as he could. And the guys I mentioned on the security council would have made that sooner rather than later. And then he would have been a huge threat to the US. You may be willing to bet millions of American lives that we could have caught a smallpox attack better than we did 9-11 or the Anthrax attacks, but I would not.

 

[michaeledward]

Now you are ducking the issue. You just got through talking about how the tanks could not be a threat to us and now you are trying to distance yourself from it.

The whole idea that Hussein had no conventional means of attacking the US has been used time and time again as a straw man argument to say that he was no threat to us.

But there are biological weapons which he ran programs for. And it is another straw man argument to say that just because he did not have a program at the time of his defeat that he would never start another one up again.

Looking at his pattern of behavior, it is reasonable to believe that he would have started up a program just as soon as he could. And the guys I mentioned on the security council would have made that sooner rather than later. And then he would have been a huge threat to the US. You may be willing to bet millions of American lives that we could have caught a smallpox attack better than we did 9-11 or the Anthrax attacks, but I would not.

So ... how far into future does your crystal ball see?

And, how much money and blood and opportunity costs are you willing to expend on what might happen at some point in the future.

And, when you define that, please tell me what other rulers, in what other nations, we must topple by using your logic.

 

[Don Roley]

So ... how far into future does your crystal ball see?

And, how much money and blood and opportunity costs are you willing to expend on what might happen at some point in the future.

And, when you define that, please tell me what other rulers, in what other nations, we must topple by using your logic.

You think that a briefing in August that said that Osama was "determined to strike" the US should have told us everything about 9-11 the following month and yet you think that looking at Hussein's behavior with bio weapons and stupid stunts is some sort of crystal ball trick?

The simple fact is that we can work with some and nudge them. The house of Saud is an example of people who we can convince to stop doing things with pressure.

Others we can intimidate into not doing something stupid. Quaddafi is a case of someone who is now, reluctantly, moving away from being a threat to us.

But Hussein just could not be counted on to do the smart thing.

And yes, there may be other changes in the coming years. Some nations like Iran can change from within- I hope. Others may not. Few actually pose as much of a threat as a guy like Hussein who thought he could take on the US and win.

 

[michaeledward]

Gee, you think that a briefing in August that said that Osama was out to get the US should have told us everything about 9-11 the following month and yet you think that looking at Hussein's behavior with bio weapons and stupid stunts is some sort of crystal ball trick?

The simple fact is that we can work with some and nudge them. The house of Saud is an example of people who we can convince to stop doing things with pressure.

Others we can intimidate into not doing something stupid. Quaddafi is a case of someone who is now, reluctantly, moving away from being a threat to us.

But Hussein just could not be counted on to do the smart thing.

And yes, there may be other changes in the coming years. Some nations like Iran can change from within- I hope. Others may not. Few actually pose as much of a threat as a guy like Hussein who thought he could take on the US and win.

You aren't confusing al Qaeda and Iraq, are you?

• Bin Laden - Threat, memo told us so. So did the CIA.
• Hussein - Not a Threat - UNMOVIC told us so, til we ran them out of dodge.

As to your comment ... "Few actually pose as much of a threat as a guy like Hussein" ... please cite any intelligence source that makes this claim. It doesn't even need to be credible.

In late 2002 ... Saddam Hussein posed very little threat to anyone.

 

[Don Roley]

You aren't confusing al Qaeda and Iraq, are you?

• Bin Laden - Threat, memo told us so. So did the CIA.
• Hussein - Not a Threat - UNMOVIC told us so, til we ran them out of dodge.

As to your comment ... "Few actually pose as much of a threat as a guy like Hussein" ... please cite any intelligence source that makes this claim. It doesn't even need to be credible.

In late 2002 ... Saddam Hussein posed very little threat to anyone.

You are still missing my point- or trying to confuse it in the minds of others.

In hindsight he was not a threat in 2002. He had declared to the UN that he had anthrax, told them that he had destroyed it but refused to providethe proof he was required to. He wanted the world to suspect he had bio weapons and unfortunatly for him, we believed him. But it seems that maybe he really did destroy his stockpiles and was playing a game of bluff.

But just as soon as the sanctions came down due to Chinese, Russian and French drives in the UN, then he would have had the means and oppurtunity. And we know he had the intent based on his past actions.

Again, you may be willing to gamble with million of American lives that once he was free to import dual use technology he would ignore the fact that the Anthrax attacks got away without us knowing who did it. But some of us are not.

 

[michaeledward]

You are still missing my point- or trying to confuse it in the minds of others.

In hindsight he was not a threat in 2002. He had declared to the UN that he had anthrax, told them that he had destroyed it but refused to providethe proof he was required to. He wanted the world to suspect he had bio weapons and unfortunatly for him, we believed him. But it seems that maybe he really did destroy his stockpiles and was playing a game of bluff.

But just as soon as the sanctions came down due to Chinese, Russian and French drives in the UN, then he would have had the means and oppurtunity. And we know he had the intent based on his past actions.

Again, you may be willing to gamble with million of American lives that once he was free to import dual use technology he would ignore the fact that the Anthrax attacks got away without us knowing who did it. But some of us are not.

No Hindsight, nor clairvoyance, was required.

By late 2002, Iraq had declared to the United Nations that they had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. They provided quite a bit of documentation to the United Nations to back up their statements. But, even if one was disinclined to believe what the government of Iraq stated to the UN, there was an alternative.

There were inspectors on the ground. Inspecting each and every location the United States Intelligence Services told them to inspect. Quite probably British Intelligence was also providing locations to inspect to UNMOVIC.

The United Nations Inspectors looked closely at over 700 locations, including many sites provided by the best intelligence the United States could provide to UNMOVIC.

Taking into account which sites were inspected, one must either believe the United States would have provided UNMOVIC the most likely places to search, in order to find weapons, or that the United States provided UNMOVIC false locations, to speed the charge to war. Taking into account the latter option, (and I would prefer my government not play such nefarious games with so dire a subject), then the Iraq Survey Group should have easily and quickly located the prohibited weapons. As that did not happen, one must conclude the United States Intelligence Services were providing UNMOVIC the most likely places to search for prohibited weapons. Therefore, with each failed inspection, the justification for launching an invasion decreased. The Inspection regime could not be allowed to continue. And it wasn't.

There were inspectors on the ground. And given a few more weeks, they would have been able to declare, with as much assurance as anyone can ever declare, that Iraq did not have any banned weapons, or weapons programs. That Iraq had, according to the terms of the end of hostilities in 1991, disarmed.

Iraq was not a threat.

 

[Don Roley]

Again, you just can't seem to get the point.

There were UN inspectors on the ground when Hussein ran his bio warfare program. Did the inspectors find it? No, it took his son- in- law defecting to bring it to light. Do you want to trust the process a second time?

For that matter, do you want to declare that a guy who tried to assasinate an ex-president and run a bio warfare under the noses of Un inspectors, used chemical weapons on his own people, etc. was no threat to the US? :lfao:

But the main point is that while there were inspectors on the ground when you say they were, they would not have been there forever. How many times do I have to point out that Russia, China and France would have lifted the sanctions and inspectors just as soon as they can and then Hussein would have been free to get his hand on things that could be used for bio warfare programs. Much of the stuff you use to develop bio weapons are also medical gear.

So who cares if the inspectors on the ground at the time could not find any bio warfare stuff? They didn't when there was and we can be reasonably sure that Hussein would have ran right back to setting up a bio warfare plan as soon as he could. Some of us are not willing to let him get a chance to launch smallpox on Americans even if it was possibly not a threat for a few years.

Is that really that difficult for you to understand?

 

[FearlessFreep]

Don The Cop: We had enough evidence to get a search warrent, and reason to beleive that if we did not execute the warrent, another crime would be committed.
Michael The Defense Lawyer: There was not enough evidence to convict and in the process you shot the guy.

The only real contention is whether or not there was enough evidence to establish Probable Cause or not. To many, there was. Too many others, there was not. And it's on that premise a 'credible argument' rests

 

[michaeledward]

I believe there is another 'real contention'.

At what price?

There were repeated claims by the Bush Adminstration that Saddam Hussein must 'disarm'. Those were the terms of the cessation of aggression in 1991, what that United States, and the rest of the world demanded at that time.

Changing the topic to what Hussein tried to do to the former President Bush is irrelevant. What Iraq may have been able to accomplish once the sanctions were lifted, is also irrelevant. The sanctions should only be lifted when those imposing them are satisfied the appropriate terms have been met; United States stubbornness not withstanding.

The one valid argument is that I see is that the Inspectors couldn't find the programs in 1995, so why should we expect them to find the programs in 2002. This ignores the level of cooperation from Iraq. In 1995, the government of Iraq was hindering inspection at all costs. In 2002, that was not the case.

Actual evidence of innocence is not sufficient to overturn a guilty ruling, apparently.

So, for all of the uncertainties that the country could not allow to exist, in some third rate country we had bombed back to the bronze age, 2,599 United Soldiers have died (as of 8/12/06), 115 British Soldiers have died, 115 coalition soldiers have died, more than 19,000 United States soldiers have been injured and it is assumed that more than 40,000 Iraq citizens (non-combatant citizens) have died. The United States is spending close to two billion dollars a week, that it does not have (or is unwilling to collect from current voters), to finance the removal of Saddam Hussein.

We have torn the country of Iraq assunder. We have created a shift in the balance of power in the region toward the Shi'ites in Iran. We have established a terrorist training ground where there was none. We have set the stage for a violent civil war, which has the potention to expand into a major regional war. We have destabilized world oil supplies, threatening the economies of all the countries of the world. .... oh, I could probably go on.

I guess, this all begs the question ..... 'How's that working out for us?'

What price is too high to pay for the removal of the threat of Saddam Hussein?

 

[Don Roley]

What Iraq may have been able to accomplish once the sanctions were lifted, is also irrelevant.

It, and everything else, is very relevant.

We know that he would have had the motive, oppurtunity and means to kill millions of people. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have tried. Maybe we could have caught him before he did, maybe we would have seen a smallpox attack on the US.

Honestly, I am not willing to risk those millions of lives for the rights of a guy with a pattern of behavior like Hussein. He had to go down. We could not intimidate him, we could not reason with him and so we had to take him down.

 

[Kensai]

It, and everything else, is very relevant.

We know that he would have had the motive, oppurtunity and means to kill millions of people. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have tried. Maybe we could have caught him before he did, maybe we would have seen a smallpox attack on the US.

Honestly, I am not willing to risk those millions of lives for the rights of a guy with a pattern of behavior like Hussein. He had to go down. We could not intimidate him, we could not reason with him and so we had to take him down.

On the basis of the "threat of WMD's" against the US, why don't you go into North Korea? They've been actively developing WMD's, admitted it publicly, even test fired various missile types. Why concentrate on Iraq? Simple. Iraq was nothing more than a soft target. I worked in British military intelligence during the 2nd Gulf, and I can most assuredly say that the level of threat that the country of Iraq presented to anyone was that of a pityfully poor, severely weakened, threadbare country. Other, more politically minded reasons are at play here. Partly oil, partly the checking of Chinese (future probable super power) expansion into that region, the continuing destablisation of the Gulf region, the not allowing of anyone real power to emerge to make it easier to control access to the worlds greatest oil producing region. Also shows the Islamic world what the US military what it can do, a demonstration if you will.

I say again, go and attack North Korea. Oh wait, methinks the US would get one helluva bloodied nose there, especially with Chinese support. The US high command knows that, and isn't so stupid to get involved in that. Far easier to beat the living crap out of a country that couldn't defend itself militarily if it tried, than to attack one that could be a severe embarrasment to the US administration. "Another long drawn out war in South East Asia"? Stuff that.... No political administration wants to get involved in a protracted, "unwinnable" war that doesn't make it look good. Does the US though, honestly think it can "win a war" against Islamic fundamentalism? With F17's? With M-4 carbines? With tomahawks? Is that the right way to go about it?

You cannot justifiably say "oh we attacked Iraq 'cos we think they have WMD's". As mentioned we (the West) know North Korea has them? What do we do? It is the selective use of force against countries we know "we can take" that happen to be Islamic. These people aren't "the Reds", a "Commie scum". They couldn't be defeated by the Crusaders a 1000 years ago, and they won't be defeated by the use of bombs and bullets. Hussein? Small fry.