Iraq: Yet Another Smoking Gun?

Great Debates
61

Yeah, that decree had me splitting my sides. As if these commanders out there were doing anything but exactly what Saddam wanted in the first place. He’s trying to create the notion that IF weapons of mass destruction are found, it’ll be because of some rogue officer, and Saddam will have him punished, and now the regime has yet another layer of deniability around its WMD programs.

Plus, Saddam is just stupid enough to think that people in the West might actually believe he’s sincere.

But the inanity of this decree won’t stop the French and Germans from leaping on it as an example of how Saddam has turned a new leaf and is now kind to puppies and old ladies.

62

Where is the “roll on the floor laughing my arse off” smilie when I need it?

You don’t think the US will also face certain destruction if other countries launch a whole bunch of nuclear ICBMs at you?

Speaking of knee-jerking responses. :rolleyes:

63

:stuck_out_tongue: <— I like this one.

So you are saying that if the US decides to invade Mexico then a “whole bunch of ICBMs” will be launched at it? :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

Where do you get this stuff?

64

Tejota wrote: Here’s a hint Sam: more unloaded guns isn’t going to convince anyone. Find an actual, present day, credible threat to the US. OR get the UN to decide that war is the only way to enforce their edicts in Iraq. Either one will do, but nothing else will convince us law-and-order types to go to war at this time.

Did we see any smoking gun for 9/11? No, it just happened. A regime that supports terrorism, is not going to just let a prepared nukes, bio. or chem weapon stay sitting in the sun. They are going to use it, give it to another country to use it. Or give it to a terroist org. that is going to use it. So of course we will have lost our smoking gun, because we sat on our asses, waiting for them to come up with one.

We (and I speal on behalf of MANY supporters of BUSH (MY president)) are not going to sit by and wait for Saddam to crate a smoking gun. We are going to keep him from ever getting around to making it.

Now which option sounds better. a.) Wait for a smoking gun to appear, and spend the rest of our lives under ground because of fallout, plgaue(s), etc.

or

b.) take care of the problem in the beginning while it is still small (although Iraq is not exactlya small problem since Saddam has bee undermining the world since RIGHT AFTER the Gulf War ended.) and before any major damge can be done.

-You need a resolution passed- take it to the UN.
–You need a resolution enforced- take it to the US.

Oh, and a lil’ side note. With The current Pres. Bush as the governor of TX. If TX was to exhile itself from the U.S. (and it is written in the constitution that it is the only state bearing this right to do so.) it would rank as number 11 on the economic scale.

So. He is not a Republican ingnoramous form TX. You don’t get into Yale being an idiot (or Harvard, whichever one it was that the current Pres. DID go to.) There’s a reason why the Mexicans called the Texas militias the Texas Devils. Because when it comes down to something as serious as wmd’s, we do not b.s. around, and beat around the bush. We get straight to the core of the problem. We do not sit around in the white house for 8 yrs. straight doing jack squat, causing our country to go down the crapper, and only worry if the intern b/w my legs with her head on my d*%k isn’t grinding her teeth against it in the (now known as) “Oral Office”; and not worrying about the country’s economy because noone will see the aftermath of my presidential terms until the next term cycle begins with a new res. to take the downfall of everything that “he” did wrong.

And we have a thing called honor and loyalty for our country. So which means we do not let our first wives go over to third world countries and disgrace the name of the country that their husbands are running.

65

But since Saddam is a “problem” that is going to turn into a threat the US only in your fevered imagination, what exactly are you going to do to solve it? Increase your meds?

Nonsense, there was lots of warnings before 9/11! If Bush had been focusing his attention on anti-terrorism like the Clinton admin had suggested, they might have actually put the pieces together in time. Clinton had been trying to take down Bin Laden for most of his time in office. (Unsuccessfully, it would seem, but Bush didn’t even try) 9/11 wasn’t a problem that came screaming out of nowhere, it’s just that the Bush adminstration wasn’t paying attention to the real threats until it was all over.

Which is exactly the mistake they are trying to repeat in Iraq.

66

RSC0318 said:

Yes sir, those Mexicans were just loaded with WMD, weren’t they? Most of the Mexicans who were killed by your so-called Texas Militias were poor defenseless dirt farmers who could barely keep themselves and their families fed. Those people called your vaunted Texas Militias Tejano Diablos because a fair portion of the members of those Militias were mad-dog killers, out to “avenge” themselves on any and all Mexicans because of attrocities perpetrated by Santa Anna.

RSC0318 further said:

Is it okay for second wives to do whatever it is you are talking about?

67

Tejota, my BS meter just went off the scale. Care to provide cites supporting your assertion, particularly this one:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…popping off a few cruise missiles is not an effective response to terrorist acts. What other steps did Clinton take? I don’t remember any.

Criticizing Bush’s actions toward terrorism by comparing him to Clinton is beyond laughable. Actually, it approaches surreal.

68

“If Bush had been focusing his attention on anti-terrorism like the Clinton admin had suggested”
I gotta say that it’s hard to take team Bush’s threat assessment capabilities seriously after the way they got blindsided so badly by the UN yesterday. Even this morning, when they should have had a coherent contingency response, all that’s heard is the sound of turtles barking for air.

69

Uhh, cite? I don’t think all the bombs in the world have enough power to end human existance. Hard buggers to bring down. So tell me, what 6 bombs do we have that can individually end human existance in your world? (fantasy world I dare say)

70

Remember when Saddam went to visit his human shields / hostages during the Gulf War, and you could see the poor boy’s hair stand on end when Saddam came over to pat him on the head? That’s how I always think of the guy.

Sam, if he stays in power and launches a massive bioweapons attack somewhere, you tried. Some people can deal with Saddam in power more easily than others can. In my head I take a really bad dictator like Saddam and calculate his casualty to time in power ratio. He’s well worth a fairly substantial war to dislodge him.

71

Gaaaahh. This is still here:

99.5 percent of the world is convinced that he has no nuclear weapons. The inspectors are not sure that he doesn’t have nuclear weapons. Would be nice if that one thing, just one, could be nailed down…

72

E-Sabbath: Your assertion about what’s the proper level of military force is pure & unadulterated malarkey. If what you say were true, then we would have been raining nuclear weapons in Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Iraq. The proper level of military force is the force required to accomplish the mission.

73

No, Monty, you’re just misreading my words. Force Necessary to accomplish a task. Not Maximum Force Possible. In short, we agree. The force required to accomplish the mission efficiently. (Note that not nuking things is more efficient than nuking them, except in certain specific cases, for political and long-term reasons)

However, we did not use proper military force in Vietnam. It was a ‘police action’. And treated as such, from an administrative viewpoint. “Don’t go here. Don’t bomb above here.”

And thus, it failed in the short term.

In the long term, it helped bankrupt the Soviet Union, but that argument is… well, I’m not convinced it was what they were primarially aiming for.

74

Okay. No one disagrees that Saddam is in violation, only how to deal with it. Here’s my question: Considering that we’re going to war to be safe from Saddam’s WMDs, couldn’t one argue that the best course is NOT to go to war? After all, hardly anyone in the Administration, or on this very board, has countered the CIA assertion (brought up by anti-war activists) that Saddam is extremely unlikely to sell WMDs to terrorists if not invaded, and extremely likely to if he is. Since the military is probably not going to be able to stop him from getting the WMDs out of the country, wouldn’t they, in the hands of unknown figures, probably terrorists, be a LOT more dangerous? Wouldn’t it be better to keep them in a country until we figure out exactly where they all are, THEN swoop in with surgical precision?

This is my major thought against war, and so far, it’s been addressed by few. And that fact alone disturbs me. I just hope it isn’t being deliberately avoided…

75

Eep… No kidding, Epimetheus.

Wha?? Where the hell did you get that from? The largest US bomb ever tested was 25 megatons, far short of an extinction-causing event (And the largest currently in inventory is 9 megatons, IIRC). Contrast this to the largest yield ever atained, a Russian fission-fussion-fission bomb that yielded 100 megatons. There is no way one of these could wipe out all of the human population on the planet. Six of them couldn’t do it. In fact, the entire US nuclear arsenal probably couldn’t do it. The combined nuclear arsenal of the entire human race probably couldn’t do it…

76

Squink siad: “I gotta say that it’s hard to take team Bush’s threat assessment capabilities seriously after the way they got blindsided so badly by the UN yesterday. Even this morning, when they should have had a coherent contingency response, all that’s heard is the sound of turtles barking for air.”
Bush is backed by 14 other nations within the U.N. alone. So that leaves the very small group of nations plus the three nation with veto power (which (unfortunately) have the ‘voice’ of the U.N. and decide on its actions) that do not suport The bush administration’s request. I’m sure you can find this info. either on www.rightwingnews.com or perhaps www.newsmax.com or www.townhall.com try newsmax first, I believe that’s where I found this piece of info.

77

LoiusB wrote: "Yes sir, those Mexicans were just loaded with WMD, weren’t they? Most of the Mexicans who were killed by your so-called Texas Militias were poor defenseless dirt farmers who could barely keep themselves and their families fed. Those people called your vaunted Texas Militias Tejano Diablos because a fair portion of the members of those Militias were mad-dog killers, out to “avenge” themselves on any and all Mexicans because of attrocities perpetrated by Santa Anna.
"

The Texas militias did not go out on a killing spree of any and every Mexican family they cam across, they protected their area from the Mexican army lead by Santa Anna.

Oh and let me rephrase on the “first wives” comment. I meant the first wife (the wife of the President of the United Staes of America.)

But, I’ll try and keep my comments to the topic at hand from now on. My mistake for rambling.

78

So we have the argument that the US can do as it pleases since might makes right. And that supposedly is an argument against Americas weapons of mass destruction posing a threat to the world? I think you just made your opponents point, my friend.