Here’s the part of the war question I’m thinking the most about:
Iraq will most likely not give their WMDs to terrorists if we do not go to war with them, and almost certainly will if we do. This has been asserted by anti-war activists, and the CIA in a report to Congress. I have not heard/seen any Bush Administration official, or indeed, anyone on the SDMB, deny this (if they have, I just missed it, and I’d like to hear the reasons given).
Now, given that the reason that we’re going to war is to protect American lives and interests, if the above assertion is true, isn’t war counterproductive? This is one reason I formed my previous thread asking war supporters what would happen if we didn’t invade: I wanted to see if there were other circumstances and possible consequences that outweighed this risk. Since the point I wanted addressed wasn’t, I thought I’d try starting a thread specifically on it.
I’ve looked in the threads dealing with the asserted Al Queda/Iraq link and other war-related threads, trying to find specific arguments by war supporters refuting the above, but haven’t been able to find any. If there are, I’d appreciate the pointer.
Otherwise, I’d like to toss out these questions: why do supporters of war feel confident that the certain increase in terrorist threats is worth the risk, given that we’re going to war partly to prevent these threats? If they do believe that Saddam (almost typed “Saddamn” there) will distribute WMDs, why? What do they expect him to do that couldn’t be handled by non-war means of whatever sort? If they agree with the CIA Congressional report, why the continued support of war?
As with my other thread, this is mostly for my own edification, so if you have relevant links to other threads that I’ve missed, please pass 'em along here. Thanks!