Reply With QuoteThen where did the ones he supposedly had go?Of course he could obtain WMDs.
He ALWAYS had money. Let's not pretend he was broke.
How did he obtain weapons from France and Russia? Of course he could obtain WMDs. He was skimming hundreds of millions off of the oil sales. Have all of the nukes from the former USSR been located?
Then where did the ones he supposedly had go?Of course he could obtain WMDs.
He ALWAYS had money. Let's not pretend he was broke.
That does not mean he would not do so in the future.
You mean destroy or ship out? Either one is plausible at this point.[/quote]Weren't their a lot of labs found by the US in Iraq that highly indicated the presence of chemicals used in WMD's?[/quote]I would imagine residues and such would remain from any WMD program. I'm not doubting one ever existed -- just how much was left.Wasn't it like 16 months or so? That wouldn't have been enough time to get rid of anything he might have had?
He certainly ended up with some conventional weaponry since the end of the first Gulf War.
Doesn't mean he would either. It just comes down to how many folks you mind killing on a hunch.That does not mean he would not do so in the future.
Again, more than a "hunch".
No doubt. Should we go after everyone with conventional weapons now too? The whole reason for leaving Sadam in power in the first place was to avoid a power vaccuum and all the resulting crap; his getting conventional weapons helped the status quo -- it certainly wasn't enough to wage much war. We found that out.He certainly ended up with some conventional weaponry since the end of the first Gulf War.
Considering he was a proven serial mass-murderer, I'd say that hunch would be pretty damn strong.
It's too easy. All of that money, a deep hatred for the US, stengthening ties to Islamic terrorists. All of whom have this crazy ing idea that it's okay to wipe out hordes of unarmed civilians for religious and/or political reasons without conscience. With the believe that the US and the western civilization is the embodiment of evil.
That wouldn't make you nervous? Even a little?
Again, how do you prove it?Again, more than a "hunch".
Intelligence?
The existence of huge stockpiles of WMDs was a hunch, too. A best guess everyone is backing away from.
There's plenty of those about. When do we invade Sudan?Considering he was a proven serial mass-murderer, I'd say that hunch would pretty damn strong.
He used to be OUR serial mass-murderer, too.
That shows that he clearly had an intent to rearm. Um no, I don't recall saying that we should invade every other country with conventional arms you are taking that out of context per usual.
You're right. We should only act when we know with 100% certainty, or perhaps not at all. That's been tried before.
So? Who would ever think otherwise? It's a matter of degree.That shows that he clearly had an intent to rearm.
So you are willing to bet on Hussein's willingness to not attempt to pursue the highest degree as he had prior?
No, you're right. Our foreign policy should be driven by policy-influenced intelligence. Everything is so tidy that way.You're right. We should only act when we know with 100% certainty, or perhaps not at all. That's been tried before.
I'm willing to bet it wasn't a very realistic goal, given the fact the US could bomb pretty much anything it wanted at any time.So you are willing to bet on Hussein's willingness to not attempt to pursue the highest degree as he had prior?
Then that would mean we would trust our intel services as well as that of every other nation.
Pity. They used to be so much better.hen that would mean we would trust our intel services as well as that of every other nation.
Well then. Perhaps we can't err on the side of caution.
I'd prefer a move away from outcome-based intel personally. The margin of error would be less.
Well there is always ignoring the intel or perhaps ignoring direct attacks altogether model.
That's different, but every administration has done that.
Oh?
The ignoring intel part.
Direct attacks? We're talking about the potential of direct attacks here. If you're talking about WTC 1 there is plenty that was done after that, and it's not like there was an enormous shift in AQ policy from Bush before 9/11. But you digress.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions