World Tribune says Iraq shipped WMD out. Help Dismiss.

[PatriotX]

@New Iskander

You gotta do better than that. You gotta lay it out in all the details. You gotta be convincing.

Why?

@New Iskander

Things coulda been a whole lot worse, and you know it.

I suppose that if someone set about to intentionally do worse, I’m sure that it could’ve been worse.
Of course, things would’ve beeen better if we’d avoided invading Iraq in the manner in which we did.

@SimonX

Is your Clarke stuff non-sequitur as it appears, or is there some logical connection between Clarkes actions and Zinni’s assessments.

@NI

Generals and Presidents behave and talk very different when in office and when out. Look at the actions and skip the words, whenever you can.

Non sequitur it is then.

@New Iskander

Look, I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish, but you must realize that you are singing in the same chorus that keeps on how WMD didn’t exist and the only danger is Bush, so your true voice is hard to hear…

@Simon X

I’m just saying that it’s bad for terrorists to have a better chance of acquiring WMDs or WMD components.

@New Iskander

But you are saying that in the thread titled “…Iraq shipped WMD out. Help Dismiss.”

And the thread title somehow changes whether or not it’s bad for terrorists to have a better chance of acquiring WMDs or WMD components?

If I were saying that the WMDs and WMD components “didn’t exist and the only danger is Bush” then it would be impossible for me to be saying what I am saying which is that GWB’s invasion of Iraq made it more likely for terrorists to acquire WMDs or WMD components. Obviously, if I were saying that these things didn’t exist, then how could the probability of of acquiring these increase?

@SimonX

I had previously assumed that this, [for terrorists to have a better chance of acquiring WMDs or WMD components], was uncontroversially a bad thing.

@NI

Do you seriously think that in me you found somebody who approves of that?

I described this increase in the probability that terrorists could acquire WMDS or WMD components as a ‘grave disservice.’ You said that this was a “matter of opinion.” Until you pointed out that it was just a matter of opinion, I’d assumed that it was universally held to be a bad thing that terrorists have an increased chance of getting aholt of such things.

@NI

However, you gotta look at the bigget picture. To follow your logic, Reagan should never have taken a risk to pressure the Soviet Union agressively. Just imagine all those WMD turned loose.

This is not at all related to what I’m saying. In order for the tortured analogy to be consistent it would involve Reagan overthrowing the Evil Empire, dismissing their Army and failing to assign sufficient security to the USSR’s weapon stockpiles.
You, see, it’s not the pressuring the USSR aggressively that would’ve made Soviet weapons Reagan’s responsibility. It’s the removal of the previous security for the Soviet weapons and the failure to provide subequent sufficient security that would’ve made the weapons Reagan’s responsibility.

Overthrowing Hussein and dissolving the Iraqi army made Iraqi WMDs and WMD components US’s responsibility.
So far so good.
It was the subsequent failure to adequately secure these WMD related sites that I’m discussing.
The failure to adequately secure these things was the result out troops inability to secure these sites. Our troops inability to secure these sites was the result of poor planning on the part of the Pentagon. This poor planning was pointed out pre-war by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (among others). Civilian appointees in the DoD overruled the professional military.
This, and the other similar examples of civilian appointees in the DoD overruling professional planning by experts, were a grave disservice to the US and the World.

I hope that this clears some things up.