Posted on 06/09/2003 12:42:54 PM PDT by hchutch
Perhaps by people like the President? Note in his SOTU address he pointed out the atrocities going on in Iraq on the Iraqi people, however the only reason for war given was if Hussein did not disarm. Or do you doubt the President?
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.-- President Bush 1/28/03Note he does not say the Armed For will go to free the Iraqi people, nor does he say to establish a democracy in Iraq, nor does he say to occupy territory in the Middle East to be a 'stabilizing' force. What he does say the reason for going is to disarm Hussein. So unless a massive amount of WMDs are found we have a problem. Well not we necessarily, I know what I believe. But are you supposed to believe this statement from the President of these United States? Or the National Review?
LO f-ing L! Well, Dr, you missed the key word explaning the motivating factor. The complete and total delusion of the author. "Half" he says,
Half!That's hilarious, that made my day. Talk about misrepresenting the facts to suit an agenda; that word! These empty cans rattling the most, the Paleocon internet heros get 1, O-N-E so called Paleocon elected, and maybe I'll buy say... 0.5% of the GOP is "under the bus" whatever that means. Probably a common phrase used in the fantasy world billbears has contructed for himself.
P.S. hchutch, are you intentionally pinging these goofballs, or do they follow you around?
Except that the whole point of Stanley Kurtz's article was to attempt to use the existence of radioactive materials which could possibly be incorporated into a dirty bomb as legalistic evidence that Saddam did in fact possess WMDs.
If you want to argue that there were other valid and sufficient reasons to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, that's fine. Do it. But if you are being defensive about the lack (so far) of any smoking-gun evidence that Saddam possessed WMDs, this argument just ain't gonna fly. No one who isn't already convinced on other grounds that the Iraqi war was justified is going to be convinced by the fact that some radiactive materials were uncovered and that such materials could conceivably have been inserted in radiological bombs. That simply doesn't translate into a Weapon of Mass Destruction by any meaningful interpretation of that phrase.
Frankly, most biological and chemical weapons also make lousy weapons of mass destruction, as we saw with the anthrax-in-envelopes attacks. The anthrax killed several people because we were caught by surprise. For anthrax or some other pathogen to truly cause mass destruction would require an extremely virulent and weaponized version along with an effective delivery system. The same is true of chemical weapons. But at least the potential is there. Natural smallpox has killed millions of people in the past. Chemical weapons have been used in past wars and have killed thousands. There's a modicum of plausibility in including them under the rubric of "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
The real WMDs remain explosive nuclear devices. A suitcase nuke going off near a crowded sports stadium could instantly kill tens of thousands. That kind of threat is worth seriously worrying about. Reliable intelligence that such weapons were in the hands of terrorists or rogue regimes would be an excellent argument for pre-emptive action.
Any amount found is not SUBSTANTIVE. There will always be a higher bar to hurdle, won't there?
Liar? I don't understand. This is serious stuff, and needs to be dealt with seriously. Not with 'Rat style finger pointing.
Who's right? What are the facts? These are the relevant questions. Did Saddam destroy his chem/bio weapons, allow them to degrade, hide them or transfer them, or some combination? Over what period of time? What about the nuclear program? What point was it at?
These questions will be answered. I'll remind you that the full inspections teams only arrived in Iraq last week.
Personally, I'm inclined to the view that Saddam decided on a strategy to hide and preserve his WMD programs when the run-up to Iraq began over a year ago. It might not have been intended, particulary, to involve the destruction, semi-permanent interning, or transfer of chem and bio weapons, but could have evolved in that direction as Saddam's lieutenants assessed the difficulties of hiding weapons and the risks of their being discovered.
This is purely a guess, and I'm perfectly willing to wait on the result of the investigations recently begun, but such a scenario is plausible so long as it is born in mind that the programs to produce the weapons are much more important than the weapons themselves.
The programs would be difficult, time-consuming and costly to reconstitute, but not so the weapons provided the programs have been preserved, or moth-balled in such a way that they could be rapidly restarted.
OK, suppose they did just that.
Just out of curiousity, how would you deal with the terrorist problem AFTER that? You'd have to have the government go on a hiring binge, get lots of people through security clearance requirements in record time, and get them familiar with their new jobs--and hope that the terrorists didn't take advantage of the chaos your idea would unleash...
The borders should have been sealed and every questionable character sent back to their home country.
Small problem--you just fired everyone in the INS and the Border Patrol, and a large chunk of the military as well. How do you seal the borders?
The FAA should have repealed their own law barring firearm possession on airplanes and let individual commercial lines set their own carry-on weapons policy.
And when a disciplined group of terrorists takes over another airplane with the guns your favorite airline would let them tote on board, and flies it into the Sears Tower...what would you do then?
BTW, if you say "Oh, but the people on the plane would pull out their guns, and shoot the terrorists," you're forgetting that firearms favor the few and the organized over the many and unorganized.
No I don't doubt the President. Saddam didn't "fully disarm", and we went to war.
He didn't "fully disarm" because - just as one example - Blix found a drone (banned by the UN resolution) which wasn't accounted for in Iraq's report (required by the UN resolution).
What he does say the reason for going is to disarm Hussein. So unless a massive amount of WMDs are found we have a problem.
Says who? Saddam didn't "disarm", and we went. What's the problem?
Apparently the only people that are becoming acceptable are those that are willing to follow the government blindly as long as they get a few dollars thrown their way with 'tax cuts'
Well but he and you are obviously using two different definitions of the term. His includes dirty nukes and yours doesn't. Why do you think this makes an interesting point?
No one who isn't already convinced on other grounds that the Iraqi war was justified is going to be convinced by the fact that some radiactive materials were uncovered and that such materials could conceivably have been inserted in radiological bombs.
I agree with that. 99% of people who aren't already convinced on other grounds that the Iraq war was justified probably never will be. I can live with that.
[dirty nuke] That simply doesn't translate into a Weapon of Mass Destruction by any meaningful interpretation of that phrase.
I disagree, but then again, I don't care. Call it a flibbertigibbit for all I care. It is what it is, and it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. No?
Frankly, most biological and chemical weapons also make lousy weapons of mass destruction,
... another point I don't care about. Seriously, what's your point here, that it's ok to let all sortsa creeps have this stuff, therefore? If not that, then what?
A suitcase nuke going off near a crowded sports stadium could instantly kill tens of thousands. That kind of threat is worth seriously worrying about. Reliable intelligence that such weapons were in the hands of terrorists or rogue regimes would be an excellent argument for pre-emptive action.
no argument there
You're trying to argue with the same greate thinkers who said we shoulda had thirty thousand U.S. troops surrounding Tora Bora. (Never mind that this presupposed a build-up that couldn't of had them in place until months later.)
Bill was hoping the NK's would mistake Hillary for a meal?
dp, you may be joshing, but do you realize how much financial destruction a dirty would do if it went off in the US, or anywhere?
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.