Then again, who are you to presume? Are you a professional weapons bunker contractor? Maybe they would do this, maybe not. Just because you can imagine that would be the best utilization of said hypothetical bunker, doesn't mean that is how others will logically implement theirs. You and I are simply guessing at this point. The difference is that I'm saying that either scenario is equally plausible. [...]
I agree that we are both speculating. But some speculation is more soundly based in reason than others. I am having a hard time giving credence to a scenario where the authority in charge of bunker design is explaining to Saddam that the best he can do is either bunk him down in a cot next to a warhead or put him some little hole. Or...just perhaps, none of this really exists, or at least not in the manner that the pro-war propogandists put forward.
Quote:
I'll take note that we went from talking about how a bunker may or may not be designed back to the more comfortable liberal vs. conservative rhetoric.
I took the opportunity to move from the esoteric issue of bunker design to the larger issues that were, in fact, the subject of this thread from the outset. I am sure that you don't object.
The best proof for Iraq not having any WMD's is that the USA invaded Iraq! Think about it. If the US-administration really thought that the Iraq had WMD's they would never have invaded it.
You need another hint?: Think about North-corea. They have admitted to have a nuclear-development program. North-corea is a clear and direct threat for the USA as it's much nearer than Iraq. It has a dictator... But do you think the US would invade that country, never! Because the US isn't sure if North-corea has A-Bombs or not! Too risky.
"Finding weapons" is simply a possible outcome (out of many). The real situation is to confirm that any/all weapons do or do not exist, in the face of inadequate documentation by a careless dictator. Given the nature of such devices/materials, it pays to physically verify rather than just take SH's word for it or just to assume that none exist since we don't see any lying out in the open.
This is just not true at all. In order for the war to be justified and for them to be a threat the weapons had to have been present ( not just plans to build them ) right before the war. It would be very difficult to get rid of them so quickly. Also that's what the inspectors were saying prior to the war. No WOMD found! Anything else is just silly speculation.
In order for the war to be justified and for them to be a threat the weapons had to have been present ( not just plans to build them ) right before the war.
...justified for you, apparently. Don't forget the "you". W/o comprehensive documentation on something of this critical nature, who's to know if he has nothing, has a crapload, has destroyed them, has sold them, has lost them... Just "assuming" all is well because nothing is in plain sight is not enough, in this case.
...justified for you, apparently. Don't forget the "you". W/o comprehensive documentation on something of this critical nature, who's to know if he has nothing, has a crapload, has destroyed them, has sold them, has lost them... Just "assuming" all is well because nothing is in plain sight is not enough, in this case.
It's not just me! It's everyone who's concerned with the truth in this. If they were that easy to get rid of how were they this big " threat "? Because of what the inspectors were saying right before the war the evidence points in the " he had nothing " direction.
I could "deliver" some anthrax to your doorstep, and I wouldn't even need an ICBM. [gasp] False sense of security sure must feel nice...
How would you get it into the country? Maybe you'd get it from right here but that would mean no WOMD in Iraq. But there's another problem. If you did you'd have to deliver it to many doorsteps at best to create the threat to the U.S. You see this simplistic argument just doesn't hold up.
Yeah, because smuggling a couple bil in drugs into the US every year is just impossible...
Anthrax isn't an effective terrorist weapon and is not worth the effort.
Even if you ignore this, the biggest anthrax threat is the still unresolved domestic case that has barely been really investigated. So there really isn't much to be concerned about when you weigh the quite tiny possibility of low-grade anthrax (which, regarding Iraq, evidence indicates was destroyed) entering the US against the already executed and unresolved attack (meaning 100%+ possibility) using extremely high-grade anthrax (and it still did less damage than a simple bomb in a packed subway car would have, which is the kind of attack that worries me).
Whether or not it is "effective" is not necessarily the point. Does it have the potential to cause "terror"? That is the greater concern. That is just the anthrax scenario. There are plenty of other weaponized chemical agents that can be used. They can be delivered quite easily, as well. Hence the risk/threat of something dangerous is real. The notion of "delivery" is a nonissue. I'd prefer a situation where we go in and physically verify that they "do exist" or "do not exist" in the face of a noncompliant (then) ruler who has routinely failed to be forthcoming on such a sensitive subject.
A terrorist could potentially hijack an air-crane and use it to drop a locomotive on the white house. But back in the real world, threats are determined by assessing realistically potential methods and their real context.
Quote:
There are plenty of other weaponized chemical agents that can be used.
You're running around in circles to avoid what has been said to you. You made the assertion that delivery is nonexistent. I countered that smuggling a large amount of something into the country is a nonissue, if illegal drugs are an indication. You implied that the condition of "delivery" is soley contingent on the presence of long range missles. I countered that a "delivery" could be made quite easily right at your doorstep via postal mail. That said, there are any number of ways to terrorize you, none of which require the possession of intercontinental range "delivery" devices. All of this comes from your remark that it was impossible for Iraq to present a threat to us because of "delivery". The bottomline still is, delivery is a nonissue. If you are unsatisfied with the answer to your "delivery" conundrum, then don't keep bringing it up. Faced with that, you turn around and refocus on the "where's the WMD" rhetoric. You will recall that it was explained that the need to "go in" based on the essence of determining if something does indeed "exist" or "does not exist". If it "doesn't exist", that doesn't diminish the need to have "gone in". We still had to verify that it "doesn't exist". [...awaits for what you will loop back to this time]
...imagines, "Uhh, yeah, well Bush lied to the people! Out the door in 2004! Rah-rah-rah!"
what you seem to not understand is the fact that nearly every nation in the world has biological and chemical weapons or can easily produce them, because they are easy to produce!
B- or C-weapons are not the weapons the US fears, it's the A-bomb! Nuclear weapons are much harder to produce, and these weapons are much more dangerous than the other weapons. The US doesn't really fear that the Iraq could use the A-bomb against the US. They fear that the Iraq could become a regional superpower with the possesion of the A-bomb, that the Iraq could finally be on par with Israel and practically not attackable anymore.
Personally I think that every nation in the world has the right to build and possess the A-bomb, as long as the US has A-bombs!
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
Presumbably...
Then again, who are you to presume? Are you a professional weapons bunker contractor? Maybe they would do this, maybe not. Just because you can imagine that would be the best utilization of said hypothetical bunker, doesn't mean that is how others will logically implement theirs. You and I are simply guessing at this point. The difference is that I'm saying that either scenario is equally plausible. [...]
I agree that we are both speculating. But some speculation is more soundly based in reason than others. I am having a hard time giving credence to a scenario where the authority in charge of bunker design is explaining to Saddam that the best he can do is either bunk him down in a cot next to a warhead or put him some little hole. Or...just perhaps, none of this really exists, or at least not in the manner that the pro-war propogandists put forward.
I'll take note that we went from talking about how a bunker may or may not be designed back to the more comfortable liberal vs. conservative rhetoric.
I took the opportunity to move from the esoteric issue of bunker design to the larger issues that were, in fact, the subject of this thread from the outset. I am sure that you don't object.
You need another hint?: Think about North-corea. They have admitted to have a nuclear-development program. North-corea is a clear and direct threat for the USA as it's much nearer than Iraq. It has a dictator... But do you think the US would invade that country, never! Because the US isn't sure if North-corea has A-Bombs or not! Too risky.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by Randycat99
Oops! ***Strawman alert***
"Finding weapons" is simply a possible outcome (out of many). The real situation is to confirm that any/all weapons do or do not exist, in the face of inadequate documentation by a careless dictator. Given the nature of such devices/materials, it pays to physically verify rather than just take SH's word for it or just to assume that none exist since we don't see any lying out in the open.
This is just not true at all. In order for the war to be justified and for them to be a threat the weapons had to have been present ( not just plans to build them ) right before the war. It would be very difficult to get rid of them so quickly. Also that's what the inspectors were saying prior to the war. No WOMD found! Anything else is just silly speculation.
Originally posted by jimmac
Anything else is just silly speculation.
Exactly.
Originally posted by jimmac
In order for the war to be justified and for them to be a threat the weapons had to have been present ( not just plans to build them ) right before the war.
...justified for you, apparently. Don't forget the "you". W/o comprehensive documentation on something of this critical nature, who's to know if he has nothing, has a crapload, has destroyed them, has sold them, has lost them... Just "assuming" all is well because nothing is in plain sight is not enough, in this case.
Originally posted by jimmac
More importantly not only did Iraq not have WOMD but no way to deliver them to us!
I could "deliver" some anthrax to your doorstep, and I wouldn't even need an ICBM. [gasp]
Originally posted by Randycat99
...justified for you, apparently. Don't forget the "you". W/o comprehensive documentation on something of this critical nature, who's to know if he has nothing, has a crapload, has destroyed them, has sold them, has lost them... Just "assuming" all is well because nothing is in plain sight is not enough, in this case.
It's not just me! It's everyone who's concerned with the truth in this. If they were that easy to get rid of how were they this big " threat "? Because of what the inspectors were saying right before the war the evidence points in the " he had nothing " direction.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I could "deliver" some anthrax to your doorstep, and I wouldn't even need an ICBM. [gasp]
How would you get it into the country? Maybe you'd get it from right here but that would mean no WOMD in Iraq. But there's another problem. If you did you'd have to deliver it to many doorsteps at best to create the threat to the U.S. You see this simplistic argument just doesn't hold up.
Originally posted by Randycat99
...justified for you, apparently.
No, justified according to the case laid out by president bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
Originally posted by jimmac
How would you get it into the country? Maybe you'd get it from right here but that would mean no WOMD in Iraq.
Yeah, because smuggling a couple bil in drugs into the US every year is just impossible...
Originally posted by Randycat99
Yeah, because smuggling a couple bil in drugs into the US every year is just impossible...
Anthrax isn't an effective terrorist weapon and is not worth the effort.
Even if you ignore this, the biggest anthrax threat is the still unresolved domestic case that has barely been really investigated. So there really isn't much to be concerned about when you weigh the quite tiny possibility of low-grade anthrax (which, regarding Iraq, evidence indicates was destroyed) entering the US against the already executed and unresolved attack (meaning 100%+ possibility) using extremely high-grade anthrax (and it still did less damage than a simple bomb in a packed subway car would have, which is the kind of attack that worries me).
Originally posted by Randycat99
Does it have the potential to cause "terror"?
A terrorist could potentially hijack an air-crane and use it to drop a locomotive on the white house. But back in the real world, threats are determined by assessing realistically potential methods and their real context.
There are plenty of other weaponized chemical agents that can be used.
Which chemical agents?
------------------------------------------------------------
The notion of "delivery" is a nonissue.
------------------------------------------------------------
You mean you'd like it to be nonissue!
Originally posted by Randycat99
Yeah, because smuggling a couple bil in drugs into the US every year is just impossible...
This still doesn't address the issue of were there WOMD in Iraq before the war and did it constitute a threat to us.
A threat to one person and the country as a whole are 2 different things.
You're reaching here.
...imagines, "Uhh, yeah, well Bush lied to the people! Out the door in 2004! Rah-rah-rah!"
what you seem to not understand is the fact that nearly every nation in the world has biological and chemical weapons or can easily produce them, because they are easy to produce!
B- or C-weapons are not the weapons the US fears, it's the A-bomb! Nuclear weapons are much harder to produce, and these weapons are much more dangerous than the other weapons. The US doesn't really fear that the Iraq could use the A-bomb against the US. They fear that the Iraq could become a regional superpower with the possesion of the A-bomb, that the Iraq could finally be on par with Israel and practically not attackable anymore.
Personally I think that every nation in the world has the right to build and possess the A-bomb, as long as the US has A-bombs!
Nightcrawler
Dope.