Re: It all comes full-circle ... WMDs found in Iraq

In article <43051205.8110629@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bob) wrote:

> On 18 Aug 2005 15:01:36 -0700, dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >
> >Bob wrote:
>
> >>
> >> and i am simply not waiting to give him a chance. he wanted WMD's...he
> >> had a history of developing those. there's no guarantee he wouldn't
> >> work with terrorists, and, at some point, some middle eastern country
> >> was going to have to be reformed. there is simply no reason NOT to
> >> invade.
> >
> >Of course, the same goes for Iran, North Korea, etc. Do you want to
> >invade those countries as well? Oh, wait! We don't have any troops to
> >invade anyone at this point. And, there were many reasons not to
> >invade. At the current time, I can think of at least 1860+~13,000+$200
> >billion + (however many Iraqis have died) reasons not to invade...
>
> invasion is always a possiblity. i certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Unless we are attacked, I would.
>
> and the total cost of the WTC attack? about $150B. so the economic
> risks are commensurate....not to mention the 3000 dead there.
>

There you go again, conflating 9/11 with Iraq. You complain when I
mention you did it, but you keep on doing it. Why?
> >>>> >
> >> >As I said, your logic is the same as our attacking Mexico after Pearl
> >> >Harbor, because it is more convenient...
> >>
> >> and your logic seems to be 'let's wait and see what happens next'.
> >
> >Not at all. Your "target rich" reasoning is ridiculous on the face of
> >it. By your logic, we could have also invaded Germany. Now that is a
> >target rich environment...
>
> really? germany's preparing WMD's and aids terrorists and is in the
> grips of an islamist theocracy?

No. But, then again, neither was Iraq.
>
> who knew schroeder was a fanatic?
>
> >>
> >>
> >> correct. but they weren't the next target. it's been my contention for
> >> awhile that france, wanting balance of power politics, wants to do it
> >> on the cheap by having terrorists counterbalance the US position in
> >> the world. their position at the UNSC certainly was part of that
> >> effort.
> >
> >And, your support for your contention is exactly what? You are sounding
> >something like a creationist in these arguments.
>
> read, for example, henry kissinger's book 'diplomacy'. french has
> always had a policy of trying to counter the 'unipolar' world as de
> villepan once termed it.

You are not supplying evidence. You are actually starting to sound like
Ray...

8^(
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> if so, the difference is marginal. again, we were attacked prior to
> >> >> our liberation of iraq...and al qaida was, and is trying to acquire
> >> >> WMD's. our work in iraq made virtually no difference to the size of
> >> >> the islamist threat.
> >> >
> >> >You are wrong, and you keep trying to conflate 9/11 with Iraq.
> >>
> >> you're welcome to put words in my mouth. you're welcome to continue
> >> saying that nonsense.
> >
> >You are the one saying we had the right to invade Iraq because we were
> >attacked before the invasion. I haven't said it.
>
> WHOA sports fans...what i said was in response to YOUR contention that
> iraq is making MORE terrorists. it's not; they hated us BEFORE the
> iraq liberation.


They certainly hate us far more now. Remember, most Arab countries sent
condolences after 9/11.
>
> and we certainly have a right to pre-empt potential attacks on the US.
> again, you seem to be willing to rely on hussein's good word.

But you seem to forget that there was no possibility of a pre-emptive
attack on the US by Iraq. SH didn't have the weapons, the delivery
systems, the connections with terrorists, or anything else.
>
> i'm not.

No, you are instead making things up.
>
> >
> >> however, i am not willing to wait until the next opportunity. you are.
> >> that's the difference. you're willing to gamble american lives. i am
> >> not.
> >
> >Oh? It seems you are gambling a great many American lives. 1860 as of
> >last count, plus something over 13,000 wounded, many having lost limbs,
> >etc.
>
> correct. if the result is the destruction of a base for development of
> WMD's, elimination of a crazed dictator who had the potential for
> inflicting harm on this country...

I'll give you 1 of 3. We got rid of a crazed dictator, but that is about
it.
>
> yep. i'm willing to get rid of him.

Too bad things are likely to be worse, when the Shi'ite theocracy takes
over in the south, and the Kurdish north is invaded by the Turks, etc.
I'm not saying this will happen, but it is a better possibility now than
it was before.
>
> >>
> >> >Remember, Iraq had no connection with 9/11, no matter how much the
> >> >Bushies may want you to believe it did. And, we now have far less
> >> >ability to fight real threats, because we are spread so thin in Iraq.
> >>
> >> what 'real threats'? are you saying we should invade iran? syria?
> >> korea?
> >
> >Not at all. I'm saying we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. They were less
> >of a threat than N. Korea or Iran, for sure.
>
> the difference is marginal.


You really gotta stop smoking that stuff!
>
> >>
> >> we are spread thin. yet, perhaps in a few years, there WILL be a
> >> stable arab democracy. it's a gamble worth taking.
> >
> >Can I have some of what you are smoking?
>
> non response.

I had answered it several other times. The fact is that I think you are
very wrong on this.
>
> >>
> >> >Add to this the fact that Iraq is likely to become an Islamic
> >> >theocracy, allied with Iran,
> >>
> >> which is irrelevant. iran is an islamist theocracy trying to get
> >> WMD's. we are working the situation diplomatically with the EU. iraq
> >> now does not have the capability to develop WMD's and will not. that's
> >> one problem off our plate
> >
> >Um, sure. Yet, if they become allied with Iran, the problem is suddenly
> >back, isn't it?
>
> could be. and if that's the case, then we'll have to deal with it.

With what? We are stretched to the limit now.
>
> HOWEVER, the issue is that they are being given a chance to re-enter
> civilization. what they do with it is up to them.

You know, if the occupation had been handled correctly, there may have
been a chance that you could be right. However, it wasn't, and the odds
of something good coming out of Iraq now are minimal at best.
>
> Plus, we have made the best recruiting poster for OBL
> >that is possible. No, if anything, we jumped off our plate right into
> >the fire, to use a mixed metaphor.
>
> wrong again. you keep stating, w/o proof, that iraq is a recruiting
> ground for bin laden....

And, you keep denying it, again without providing any evidence. Indeed,
you rarely provide evidence. As far as recruiting tools, the insurgency
keeps growing and growing. That alone is some sort of evidence that
supports my assertions.
>
> since bin laden attacked us BEFORE we liberated iraq, your argument is
> simply WRONG.
>

Logic ain't your strong point I see. Just because there were some who
hated us before Iraq doesn't mean there aren't more after the invasion.
Look at the poll numbers in Muslim countries before and after March,
2003. They support me.
> >>
> >>
> >> are you realistic enough to admit it may be a success?
> >
> >I certainly hope it will be a success. However, the odds of it are
> >very, very low. Remember, Iraq isn't a real country, like Iran,
> >England, etc. are countries. It is an artificial amalgam of three
> >ethnic groups who really don't like one another much at all. The
> >chances of them forming a stable democracy are really quite low. Civil
> >war is probably more like it.
>
> yes, that's certainly possible. in fact, probable. nonetheless, they
> have been given a chance..and so have we.

No. Any chance they were given was taken back when we screwed up the
occupation.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> that's certainly possible. the arabs may succeed in spite of us.
> >> unfortunately we hadn't counted on the murderous hatred many arabs
> >> have for their brothers. very unfortunate indeed.
> >
> >It isn't so much hatred of Arabs for fellow Arabs. You have different
> >religions mixed in there,
>
> depends. there is deep hatred between shia and sunnis...

Well, I'm glad you agree with me...
>
> plus an ethnic group, the Kurds, who have
> >wanted their own country for many years. Plus, you have other countries
> >(Turkey and Iran) who really don't want a separate Kurdish state. Our
> >invasion of Iraq really did open up a can of worms.
>
> and it may have closed another. again, only time, and the arabs, will
> tell.

I used the wrong analogy. I should have said Pandora's Box. That was
mighty difficult to close.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> actually, so am i. but i think it could have been alot worse had we
> >> left hussein in place.
> >
> >I don't think so. If for no other reason, we would have given the Arab
> >world one less excuse to hate the US.
>
> and, if 3 years hence there's a functional arab democracy which is a
> beacon to the rest of the region?

Even you know that is unlikely. I hope it happens, but it is very, very
unlikely.
>
> It also would have saved us $200
> >billion, and many, many lives. Iraq probably would have fallen apart
> >eventually, but it may have been less catastrophic than this is turning
> >out to be, with less US involvement, and therefore, less blame to be
> >put on the US. This whole thing has proven to be on big FUBAR.
> >
>
> if it fell apart with WMD's what would happen then?

Since they didn't have WMD,...
>

--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Iraq war is a war of a culminative scientologist
    ... Bush wants to convert countries like Afghanistan where 1 in 8 women ... related complications and Iraq where recently at least half a million ... war, while in the past Arabs thought positively of Americans, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: How Bush predicted the Iraq war
    ... Bush was celebrating the winning and the end of the Iraq war. ... better than Arabs. ... Most ally countries sent bare minimum ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Republicans are like Scientology
    ... Report terrorism to Bush. ... Roman Democrat Iraq and claims to zone as an oilman. ... Roman Democracy he is erecting Iraq as a Model Roman Democracy in the ... 80-90 percent of Arabs now thing negatively of Americans, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Gays in Iraq felt safer under Saddam Hussein
    ... ISTM that homosexuality in M/E countries is at least a generation ... cultural missionary work it was undertaking by invading Iraq. ... overnight become tolerant of how western culture has come to tolerate ... Western democracy really means on the ground. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The US is bad fascism, even with Bush sinking
    ... military in 110 countries, a roman model democracy that represses ... Fascist inclined, rights addicts, discriminating in laws. ... American men get three times weaker sentence than Mexicans. ... Bush conspired in Iraq, but was not removed. ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading