Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:07 AM PST by Skywarner
There is no political or geographical meaning to these killings.
Gas kills all, Sunni, Shiite, American, Arab. There is no point to these murderous attacks except killing for the damned fun of it.
They dont care who they kill as long as they can do the act.
Terrorists apparently get used to it, may refine the technique and handling and ulitmately use them against US targets.
2. If they are in some way a threat, how has the war in Iraq helped to enhance our security from the threat of these WMDs?
Saddam was the major producer/user of chemical agents/weapons througout the last decades. Crushing him eliminated a (very) potential source of chemical Weapons for terrorists. Also I have no doubt the terrorists would be focusing more on the USA, if they were not diverted and fought by us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. If we went into Iraq to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on WMDs, then how successful has this venture been when terrorists are currently using those weapons?
See Answer 1. Also chlorine isn't exactly a WMD. It's as you may know, a rather common substance. The terrorists are improvising, and using chemicals in the mentioned "dirty bomb" tactic. Saddam's chemical weapons were more sophisticated and dangerous. If his regime would be still around, the terrorists would be threatening us with stuff more dangerous than chlorine.
Finally it should be said, that ultimately the terrorists in Iraq and their tactics can't be destroyed, as long as we ignore Iran and Syria. The war needs to be extended.
The US won the Tet Offensive, before Walter Cronkite lost it.
Already sent one round of e-mails to the alphabet news gang...wish everyone would do the same
>>>Also chlorine isn't exactly a WMD
That is why I stated that I thought it was a mistake to refer to these as WMDs.
On another board, the liberal reaction is "So What? We used Depleted Uranium, Poison Gas is just "Payback"..."
I am continually amazed at the utter stupidity of the average American Bush-hater...
>>>Actually, the moniker "Weapons of Mass Destruction" can really only be applied to nuclear weapons. And plasma weapons. Oh, and disruptors. Chemical and biological agents, as seen from a strictly military point of view, are Weapons of Area Denial.
That is why I think it is wrong to refer to these weapons as evidence of WMDs in Iraq. It is like saying we went into Iraq to keep Saddam from putting chlorine tanker trucks into the hands of terrorists. There are plenty of justifications for the war. That one hardly seems to be a sufficent threat to our national security to justify the war. If that is considered sufficient, then given the prevalence of chlorine available in nations that are less than friendly towards us, we are going to be invading a lot of countries.
Yes it is important. To suggest that we went into Iraq to prevent Saddam from turning
It's not like that at all. You may be trying to employ exaggeration in your argument, but you don't really pull it off. It doesn't work.
My point was not to revisit the tired old argument of WMDs being a justification for the war.
Your original post at #15 offers 3 specious arguments, none of which are well stated, and none of which can be taken seriously. Your approach actually harms your argument, whatever it may be.
When GWB first brought us into conflict in Iraq, he offered 4 separate points as justification for the move, and stressed one was not any more important than any other. The WMD justification was made on the basis of intelligence that was the best available at that time, and had as it's antecedent extensive corroborating intelligence reports from the Clinton administration that went so far as to recommend "regime change".
As for your arguments:
1. How are these so called WMDs a threat to our national security? Were we concerned that terrorists were going to drive chlorine tankers from Iraq to the US?
This isn't an intelligent argument. It's a caricature.
2. If they are in some way a threat, how has the war in Iraq helped to enhance our security from the threat of these WMDs?
If? Surely you jest. Even if we suspend reality for a moment and say, for the sake of argument that Saddam's WMDs were in fact a fiction, the possibility, however remote, that such weapons would be, or could be, in the hands of these cretins would demand an effort to be as certain as possible about the potential viability as to it's truthfulness. Anything less would be totally unsatisfactory. And possibly catastrophic.
The last word on this subject is yet to be spoken. There are WMDs out there - they just haven't been found and accounted for. Even Hans Blix admitted there is substantial material for these types of things that have not been accounted for.
As an earlier poster stated, the war has to be expanded, and if it ever is, the chances of finding some of this stuff will be greatly enhanced.
3. If we went into Iraq to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on WMDs, then how successful has this venture been when terrorists are currently using those weapons?
Classic strawman. We've been very successful in this venture insofar as denying WMDs (or even major WADs) to these terrorists. Since the big WMD scare in Jordan a couple of years ago, there's been nothing except bluff and bluster from these guys. That shows our intelligence has been spot on.
Of course, should the terrorists get ahold of, and employ, something this bad, the Dems will take one of 2 approaches (or maybe both) to this: (1)further evidence we have to get out now!; and/or, (2)this serious breakdown of intelligence is Bush's fault, and consequently he must be impeached!!!
I think the Left knows full well that the Republic is dying (their hand is everywhere, they've played no small part in our impending demise), and that we're moving on to empire. They just want empire on their terms.
It's that simple.
CA....
ever hear of Fox News????
why even bother replying to an obvious cool aid drinker.
>>>It's not like that at all. You may be trying to employ exaggeration in your argument, but you don't really pull it off. It doesn't work.
You missed the whole point of my questions. I was simply stating that the original poster was exaggerating the value of these weapons - "thank goodness there were no wmds over there..... ".
I'm not denying that Saddam's WMDs may exist, or even if they don't, that we didn't honestly think that was the case when we began the war. But to suggest that these chlorine attacks are evidence of WMDs that justify an attack on Iraq is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.