# Will WMDs be as big as Watergate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040 "2003-07-08T17:17:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/121 "2003-07-11T04:52:53Z")
“Are you not catching on on purpose? If I am a big, bad terrorist guy and I am trying to kill an infidel dog of a soldier in Iraq, it’s hard for me to go and kill that infidel dog of a child in Dairy Queen because I’m pretty freaking far away.” Or maybe, because I´m so far away I just stay home mumbling my hatred? I´d like to hear what a soldier there in the heat has to say about that. You´re short of painting a bullseye in his uniform. Also I´d like to hear what would be the reaction on recruiting offices, “see son, we give you a gun, an uniform and send you to act as a punching ball for terrorist, sign here” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![JonBodner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@JonBodner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonBodner)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/122 "2003-07-11T15:57:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pochacco \* > Except the guerrillas killing soldiers in Iraq right now are not the same people as the terrorists who targeted the United States. You are aware that the 9/11 hijackers were largely Saudi Arabian, aren’t you? And that there is no evidence whatsoever connecting SH to terrorist acts against the US? Yes, yes I am aware who the hijackers were. And it’s pretty freaking hard to do anything to them, as they are now charred bits of dust. The only thing that Iraq has to do with 9/11 is that the US can no longer sit and wait for a threat to hit us. You must take people at their word. Saddam said over and over that he wanted to destroy the US. Well, rather than waiting around and finding out if he can or can’t, the US destroyed his ability to harm the US. And I’m sorry if you can’t understand this. Luckily, the vast majority of Americans do, which will keep the US safe from its enemies. Does it bother you that after Pearl Harbor, the first place the US invaded was Tunisia? Why, that’s the other side of the world from Japan! Why didn’t we just invade Japan? > [@](#): > > It’s like someone punches you in the face and you turn around and punch the guy standing next to him. However much that second guy might have deserved to get punched, its pretty clear that it does nothing about the guy who originally attacked you. No. To fix your strained metaphor, it’s like some one punches you, you kill him, and then his buddy comes over and tries to punch you, too. So you kill him too. And he has another buddy who keeps on pointing his fist at you and saying that he’s got a gun back at his place that he really wants to use on you. So you kill him too. And you keep on killing any more idiot buddies until either there are no more buddies or until they get the picture. Do you understand yet? > [@](#): > > In Afghanistan invasion was the right course of action. There was a clear connection between the 9/11 terrorists and the Taliban. And the war on terrorism isn’t just a revenge fantasy for 9/11, any more than WW II was just a revenge fantasy for Pearl Harbor. The war on terrorism is making sure that anyone who has the **desire** to hurt the US will be taken out. > [@](#): > > Of course, with the administration’s attention unnecessarily focused on Iraq the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been woefully neglected. Chaos, warlordism, broken promises … the ground in Afghanistan is fertile for a revival of the Taliban. Yes. Afghanistan is so much worse than it was under the Taliban that refugees are returning. Blah, blah, hate Bush, blah, blah, blah. > [@](#): > > You’re comparing apples and oranges. Before the invasion SH was killing ZERO U.S. soldiers. And the Iraqi civilian death toll over the last few months has certainly exceeded SH’s average. Hopefully this will get better, but if the country continues its slide into chaos its possible that it will get worse … . SH was shooting at US soldiers patrolling the no-fly zone. Or didn’t that count because he didn’t hit any? Prove to me that the Iraqi civilian death toll has exceeded 10,000 since April 1. Because that’s Saddam’s average for 4 months. > [@](#): > > Yes, he was a very bad guy. But the question is, did he pose a serious security risk to the United States? It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the answer is NO. We could have kept him contained and impotent for a decade for a fraction of the cost in blood and silver than we’ve already spent in this war. Oh, horseshit. The sanctions were crumbling. You can’t keep 150,000 troops sitting in Kuwait forever. We were spending tens of billions on the no-fly zones. 2.5K Iraqis were being murdered each month. Saddam was offering help and poisons to terrorists. he was paying cash bounties for suicide bombers in Israel, who have killed several US citizens. But you hate Bush so much that you’d rather see Saddam in power. Don’t you find that even slightly pathetic? ---
**Author:** ![urban1a](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47c2d/32.png) [@urban1a](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/urban1a)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/123 "2003-07-11T16:11:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh, horseshit. The sanctions were crumbling. You can’t keep 150,000 troops sitting in Kuwait forever. We were spending tens of billions on the no-fly zones. 2.5K Iraqis were being murdered each month. Saddam was offering help and poisons to terrorists. he was paying cash bounties for suicide bombers in Israel, who have killed several US citizens. But you hate Bush so much that you’d rather see Saddam in power. Don’t you find that even slightly pathetic? Please provide cites for the underlined statements. Thank you, Bob ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/124 "2003-07-11T16:33:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dal\_timgar \* > \*\*The nice thing is that it is going on on both sides of the Atlantic. Parliament is after Blaire and Democrats can go after Bush. We may have a nice feedback loop that gets out of control in both countries. > > Dal Timgar \*\* Nah. In case you hadn’t noticed, while Parliment seems to have balls, the Democrats don’t. They should be yelling and screaming (for their party’s benefit, if not for moral and ethical reasons), but instead all we get is the occasional rimshot from the gallery. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/125 "2003-07-11T17:00:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JonBodner \* > **Are you not catching on on purpose? If I am a big, bad terrorist guy and I am trying to kill an infidel dog of a soldier in Iraq, it’s hard for me to go and kill that infidel dog of a child in Dairy Queen because I’m pretty freaking far away.** Are you not thinking your own argument all the way through on purpose? [Evil terrorist leader] It takes organization, effort, money, desire, and live bodies for a terrorist to come to Boise and blow up a Dairy Queen. While there seem to be thousands (or even tens of thousands) of terrorist wannabes over there, apparently it’s tough for terrorist leaders to manage to put together the whole package mentioned above and ship it to the good old USA. But still, they managed it at least once. And, they will manage it again. No matter how much money gets shoveled out to [Insert name for Night Watch here], they will still get through. Hopefully, less than got through before, but arguing total unknowns is pointless. So, here I am, Terrorist Leader Alpha. My own cell in the network is good for a couple dozen guys. They are all frothing at the mouth to go kill some Infidel Americans. But there’s no way I can manage to get 24 guys (Amazing how the leaders are never the ones with the bombs strapped to their chests) to the USA for a coordinated attack. Hell, pooling together all of our resources, even what I can beg from Those Above, the best I can manage is getting two of those guys over to the USA. What to do with those other 22 guys? Hmm… What, there’s a convoy route of Infidel Americans that passes only 25 miles away from our safe house? All that takes is 22 guys who are willing to die (and it might not even be total suicide…but I might not mention that to the guys, I’m not sure if that’s a plus or a minus), a couple RPGs, and twenty or so AK-47’s. Now, instead of two tiny needles being jabbed into the Infidel Americans, we are no twenty-four MIGHTY SPEARS OF ALLAH AIMED AT THE SOULS OF THE SOURCE OF ALL MISERY IN THE WORLD! Anyways, I did mention that I’m no good to go along, right? See, I’ve got this bad knee, and it would slow us down. I don’t want my follows to miss their eternal award because they had to slow down and wait for me. I’m gonna see if I can buy a mortar. [/Evil terrorist leader] The funny thing is that they don’t even need to be that elaborate to really hurt the USA where we’ll notice the most: Our wallets. Anyone remember what the DC area was like when Malvo and his buddy were free? If they could get 20 highly motivated men over here, and give them the money to buy 20 sniper rifles… The top-twenty metropolitan areas in the USA. And a whole lot of people are afraid to go into the streets. Honestly, once the effect Malvo had became clear, I’m really surprised we haven’t seen this happen. To me, it says that it can’t. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/126 "2003-07-11T17:12:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Merijeek \* > \*\* Whoa…I didn’t realize that a huge sleep debt and several gallons of piss-poor coffee would have quite that much effect on my typing skills. My points still stand, just pretend they were a little more eloquent. 🙂 Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to curl up on a corner until the shakes pass. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/127 "2003-07-11T17:31:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JonBodner \* > **Yes, yes I am aware who the hijackers were. And it’s pretty freaking hard to do anything to them, as they are now charred bits of dust.** But the organization that supported them is very much intact. And that organization has nothing to do with Iraq. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The only thing that Iraq has to do with 9/11 is that the US can no longer sit and wait for a threat to hit us. You must take people at their word. Saddam said over and over that he wanted to destroy the US. Well, rather than waiting around and finding out if he can or can’t, the US destroyed his ability to harm the US. > \*\* Despite his bluster, SH was not a threat to us. He was incapable of striking the US militarily, and was not affiliated with terrorists interested in striking the United States. \*\* > [@](#): > > And I’m sorry if you can’t understand this. Luckily, the vast majority of Americans do, which will keep the US safe from its enemies. > \*\* Unfortunately the Iraq invasion has not made us safer. It has bogged us down in an unnecessary war while we ignore the real threat. \*\* > [@](#): > > Does it bother you that after Pearl Harbor, the first place the US invaded was Tunisia? Why, that’s the other side of the world from Japan! Why didn’t we just invade Japan? > \*\* Tunisia was the first step in a military campaign clearly designed to defeat the axis powers. Iraq is the first step in … what? Conquering the entire Islamic world? You don’t win wars by flailing about randomly. \*\* > [@](#): > > No. To fix your strained metaphor, it’s like some one punches you, you kill him, and then his buddy comes over and tries to punch you, too. So you kill him too. And he has another buddy who keeps on pointing his fist at you and saying that he’s got a gun back at his place that he really wants to use on you. So you kill him too. And you keep on killing any more idiot buddies until either there are no more buddies or until they get the picture. > \*\* Oh. I see. You do think we should conquer the entire Islamic world … . \*\* > [@](#): > > Do you understand yet? > \*\* All too well, I’m afraid … . \*\* > [@](#): > > And the war on terrorism isn’t just a revenge fantasy for 9/11, any more than WW II was just a revenge fantasy for Pearl Harbor. The war on terrorism is making sure that anyone who has the **desire** to hurt the US will be taken out. > \*\* By this reasoning we should invade Iran, Syria, and North Korea as soon as possible. Is that what you advocate? \*\* > [@](#): > > Yes. Afghanistan is so much worse than it was under the Taliban that refugees are returning. Blah, blah, hate Bush, blah, blah, blah. > \*\* Why is it that Bush supporters always seem to assume that any criticism of the president is merely partisan sniping driven by personal animosity. Does it ever occur to you that maybe we’re criticizing him BECAUSE HE’S SCREWING THINGS UP? \*\* > [@](#): > > SH was shooting at US soldiers patrolling the no-fly zone. Or didn’t that count because he didn’t hit any? > > Prove to me that the Iraqi civilian death toll has exceeded 10,000 since April 1. Because that’s Saddam’s average for 4 months. > \*\* Civilian casualties are estimated at 4000-6000 so I’ll grant you that we’ve been slightly less efficient at killing the Iraqi people than SH was. But I would like to see a cite for your figure of 2500 Iraqis killed every month. \*\* > [@](#): > > … But you hate Bush so much that you’d rather see Saddam in power. Don’t you find that even slightly pathetic? \*\* I don’t care about Saddam. I care about the safety of the United States and its citizens. You’re so blinded by partisanship that you can’t see that the White House has made our security position worse. Don’t you find that even more pathetic? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/128 "2003-07-11T18:15:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Merijeek \* > Nah. In case you hadn’t noticed, while Parliment seems to have balls, the Democrats don’t. > > They should be yelling and screaming (for their party’s benefit, if not for moral and ethical reasons), but instead all we get is the occasional rimshot from the gallery. The Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if the American public starts to make a big fuss about this. Fortunately for the Bush administration, it seems most of the citizenry would rather watch _Last Comic Standing_ than wonder whether their leaders started a war on false pretenses… ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/129 "2003-07-11T23:30:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\*The Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if the American public starts to make a big fuss about this. Fortunately for the Bush administration, it seems most of the citizenry would rather watch _Last Comic Standing_ than wonder whether their leaders started a war on false pretenses… \*\* And that just means that the Democrats who wait for the American public are spineless. Most people don’t wonder about stuff like that precisely because Democrats have been trying to avoid challenging Bush as much as possible. You don’t get to lead by following opinion polls unless you are Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/130 "2003-07-12T00:36:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\ ***X:** _Why should that be an exception?_ > > Because we were discussing reasons for deciding to invade Iraq in the first place. Saddam’s call for jihad **after** we actually invaded wasn’t a factor. (Likewise, I think it’s pretty silly for you to say that he was extra dangerous because “he is the only arab leader who publicly call for the destruction of America and its people”—well duh, he’s the only Arab leader whose country we were invading! If we invaded any other Arab country I bet it would trigger a similar response. Hell, if we invaded some European countries it might trigger a similar response.)\*\* The problem is we already Invaded Iraq before. So are we going to forget all of his speeches and actions in between Gulf War I and Gulf War II as pretty much the act of brave leader responding to outside threats? > [@](#): > > \*\* > _Youre not seeing any evidence of this declared plan less than 6 months into it. Do You think countries and govts are reconstituted in weeks?_ > > Of course I’m not expecting to see the country or government reconstituted already, but I **did** expect to see some evidence that we had a workable **plan** to do so. (I wanted to see some evidence of such a plan before we invaded at all, as a matter of fact.) As you can see from the discussion over on the “hearts and minds” thread, the “reconstitution” process looks extremely disorganized and as though nobody really knows what they mean to do. \*\* I agree it looks disorganized. You see there was a plan. It was supposed to be implimented by the Department of Defense, Certain people (after the war) didnt like that plan. They wanted the State Department to handle it becaue theyve always handled plans like that. However, the state department (as evidenced by afghanistan currently) seems to worry more about rules than results. They worry too much about what people think about the plan than what the plan can do. There was a plan, there is a plan. what was is not what is and will not be what the plan will become. It changes as situations, opinions and circumstances dictates. This is further complicated by certain factions in Iraq who dont want a US plan at all but have their own plans to impliment. That doesnt even include those people who believe Saddam was and is the only plan for Iraq. > [@](#): > > \*\* > _OK, since it was not clear whether they really believed it, it would be logical to say they didnt?_ > > If it’s not clear whether or not they really believed the information, we can’t take it for granted **either** that they did or they didn’t. It **seems** to me that they probably didn’t, but I’m not asserting that as a fact. \*\* Situations at that time dictated that we do not wait for the final proof but act on what we had, limited and vague that may be. That is the nature of the fog of war. > [@](#): > > \*\* > _The cold war ended several years ago but this was exactly how it was implimented._ > > And a cold war with Iraq might have worked very well along those lines. What I’m objecting to is the starting of a **hot** war—not to mention a full-scale conquest and occupation—on the basis of what seem to me unrealistic (and possibly even disingenuous) claims about the immediacy and severity of the threat. \*\* Perhaps if Iraq did not have the potential to carry out another 9-11, or be as predicable or as readable as any of the soviet leaders, If Saddam wasnt as brutal as his hero Stalin but wasnt so obvious, perhaps if Saddam wasnt as openly defiant of the UN which even the USSR acknowledged, and perhaps if Saddam was in the US and USSR’s league, a cold war could be viable, as it was, Saddam invited this solution. He would not back down from an overwhelming enemy. How much more belligerant would this guy be if he even stood a small chance of beating the US? > [@](#): > > \*\* > _removing Saddam is worth it for just getting the opportunity to make Iraq a better place, for its people and secondly for the world._ > > I don’t think so. I think if we **succeed** in helping make Iraq a better place, without increasing other damages and dangers too much in the process, that will be a powerful argument that starting a war was worth it. If Iraq ends up no better or even worse, I’ll be a lot harder to convince on that score. \*\* We cannot suceed to make Iraq better if we dont get the chance to make it better and with Saddam in power, there was no way to help the people of iraq. If Iraq becomes no better that what it was when Saddam was in power, the US is still ahead of the game. A success in Iraq is a success for the US and thats probably what galls a lot of arabs. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/131 "2003-07-12T01:19:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Perhaps if Iraq did not have the potential to carry out another 9-11… Iraq didn’t carry out the first 9/11 and showed no inclination or ability to do another one. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2003, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040/132 "2003-07-12T01:28:03Z")
As I wrote in another thread on this same subject, context is important. The context in this case is coming together, as was pointed out on a show on CNBC just now, to wit: 1 - The 9/11 investigators have been complaining about a lack of cooperation from the Administration and that witnesses to their committee from the intelligence community are having to testify with - I swear I’m not making this up - minders. 2 - The economy still stinks. 3 - The occupation isn’t going well, and estimates for how expensive it will be have been shooting through the roof. 4 - The economy still stinks. 5 - The occupation isn’t going well, and even the densest person is beginning to figure out that this could turn into a protracted guerrilla war. It won’t be anywhere near as costly as Viet Nam in turns of lives, but it will still be psychologically debilitating. In guerrilla wars, it ain’t the casualties; it’s the endlessness. 6 - The economy still stinks. 'Nuff said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-wmds-be-as-big-as-watergate/187040.md?page=6)