WMD in iraq. - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
March 23rd, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
And to further Charge 7's analogy. The people doing the NaySaying are the same ones who would say. The Cop should have been sure the gun was real before shooting. Which amounts to saying he should have let the criminal shoot him first. So this amounts to saying that the US & UK should have waited until Saddam used his WMD's again or God forbid sold them to some terrorist organization.
March 23rd, 2005  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doody
About the posts pertaining to the dead horse theme. I am deleting them because they have nothing to do with this subject. If you cannot contribute to a thread, do not post at all. This goes for everyone, including the mods and Emperor Redleg.

SGT Doody
Emperor Redleg?
March 23rd, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Quote:
If a criminal commits multiple crimes after you have tried everything possible to rehab the bastard, it is time to lock him away and throw the key.
To extend the cop vs. criminal analogy; if a cop sees a felon brandishing what appears to be a gun and shoots the felon dead nobody faults the cop if the felon is found to have been pointing a cap pistol. The cop had every reason to believe the cap pistol was a gun and the felon's actions gave every reason to believe that he intended to harm. Saddam's actions are no different. He had harmed many people, he acted as if he had WMDs and we had every reason to believe he had them. He got "shot" for being a felon who was brandishing WMDs.

For my part, I think he had them and indeed the desert is a very big place. They may yet be found like the MIGs were. They may show up in Syria or Iran as well. We may never know. What we did though was right and certainly called for by the circumstances.

XXXXWARNING; DEVILS ADVOCATE XXXXX


but a cop wouldn't blow up the surounding neibourhood in arresting the crim...
--
Boots
March 24th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Bigger stakes, bigger consequences.
March 24th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
Emperor Redleg?
Come over to the dark side The Other Guy ...

I also believe it's highly possible that the WMDs are hidden in the sand. I said it before, it's very hard to detect stuff under sand.
But for the sake of argument I will assume there were none... since if you don't find it, there's a bigger case of them not being there than being there.
March 24th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Very interesting comments here.

I have been having my nose buried in this subject foir the past years.
Apparently, Saddam had destroyed all of his non conventional armaments within 1995, I'm talking about the weapons he used on the Kurds and on Iran.
The point is that like Charge said he was pretending he had dangerous weapons and did nothing to prove he didn't. Like I said many times before, the burden of the proof was on him.
His scientists now admit it would take him not too long before he made other weapons. And he deliberately had all intentions to do so.
We stopped him in time, and had we done this to NK we wouldn't have a nuclear threat hanging on our head now.

On the other hand, it is entirley possible that some chemical or biological agents be still stored somewhere under the sands, given the mistakes and blunders by the Cia in the past 4 years that wouldn't surprise me.
March 24th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
We're not even sure if the North Koreans have a nuke. They're calling the bluff and we're being safe about it.

Anyways about Iraq.
I did say that Saddam ACTED like he had WMDs. Which is why when there were conflicting evidence, the Americans preferred the ones that suggested the presence of WMDs. Why Saddam acted like a guilty man (of WMDs) I am really puzzled.
I say DO NOT discount the possibility of that stuff being out there buried in the sand but perhaps even more importantly, I wouldn't put any money on that statement and I think it's safe for all of us to assume that Saddam didn't have WMDs when the US went in... and perhaps while the whole mess at the UN was going on.
March 24th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: uh...


I can understand where Doody is coming from.

The cop analogy is a bit off if look into magnitude of the matter and given conditions.

Cop, under the law, has rights to protect themselves if dangerous situation arised. Whereas, Iraq is not the US and it is a foreign country. You can't just attack a foreign country under uncleared presumptions. Eventually, it is upto the UN to determine who need/must be toppled by sheer force.
March 24th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 

Topic: Re: uh...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobies
I can understand where Doody is coming from. The cop analogy is a bit off if look into magnitude of the matter and given conditions.

Cop, under the law, has rights to protect themselves if dangerous situation arised. Whereas, Iraq is not the US and it is a foreign country. You can't just invade a foreign country under uncleared presumptions. It is upto the world council to determine who need/must be toppled by sheer force.
No, it is not up to anyone when there is no world government able to enforce laws.
Anarchy rules and there's nothing above the single States sovereignty.
March 24th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Hmmmm....


Italianguy, base on what you said, I assume you mean the western power uses the facade of "Law and Order" to exercise worldly anarchies? I hate to believe in that and for sure, I don't support that neither.