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


Bob wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:21:53 GMT, David Fritzinger
> <dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >In article <430dde74.45535838@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bob) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> i do not know. i do not care. he's not a pat robertson. he has
> >> credibility and his numbers are a good starting point. patricia crone,
> >> et al, have also made the point that islam is a religion where
> >> fundamentalism has become mainstream.
> >
> >So, you base a large part of your argument on Pipes' numbers, but don't
> >know and don't care where he got them from. Do you see the illogic in
> >this?
>
> no. because his numbers are as good as anyone elses. there are no poll
> results for fundamentalism in islam.

IOW, it's a guess, that you want to believe in. Thanks for the
admission.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> the FACT is SUPPORT for terrorism is decreasing. 10 guys can form a
> >> terrorist group. that does not mean a billion muslims support it.
> >
> >Your argument above is in contradiction to your argument in the first
> >paragraph. Which is it?
>
> my argument in the 1st paragraph was that about 100,000,000 muslims
> support bin laden. my argument above is that this hasnt changed due to
> iraq.
But in one case you say there are 100,000,000 Islamists, frothing at
the mouth to destroy the west. Then you say that support for the
Islamists is decreasing. Which is it?
>
> QED>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Your problem is that many of the radical Muslim Fundamentalists don't
> >> >have loyalty to any government.
> >>
> >> correct. but the govts they uses as base camps (sudan, somalia, libya)
> >> certainly do.
> >
> >And some of them (Somalia and Sudan come to mind) couldn't stop them
> >because they don't have strong central governments.
>
> the sudan couldnt stop him? really? got proof? because the govt of the
> sudan provided al qaida with passports, govt documents and let him
> invest in the al shifa VX production plant.
>
> and libya certainly COULD have stopped him.

Did LIbya actually suppolrt al Qaeda? I really don't know.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> except, of course, the islamists. again, to them afghanistan is the
> >> same as iraq.
> >
> >Evidence for this?
>
> sigh...do you EVER read anything they write? really?

I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. I am talking about the
majority of Muslims,while you are talking about supporters of
terrorism.
> >> s.
> >> >
> >> >He had the perfect laboratory-Afghanistan. He blew it by taking his eye
> >> >off the ball and going into Iraq.
> >>
> >> afghanistan is getting ready for parliamentary elections. sounds like
> >> democracy to me.
> >
> >Yet, most of Afghanistan is controlled by warlords.
>
> there are 'warlords' but last year karzai took on the largest with the
> afghan army and forced him to concede the authority of the central
> govt.

Still, Karzai barely controls much of the country. And, the Taliban
insurrection is increasing.
>
> Taliban activity is
> >increasing (look at the US death toll in Afghanistan over the last
> >couple of weeks). Karzai is trying, but he has much in opposition to
> >him.
>
> again do you READ?

Yes.
>
> what do you EXPECT them to do when faced with elections? take a
> vacation?

You are talking about something different. I am talking about the
levels of the insurrection, not the reason for it.
>
> >> >>
> >> >Actually, it isn't. Saddam has never had relationships with al Qaeda, or
> >> >any other Muslim fundamentalist terrorist group.
> >>
> >> he certainly had discussions with them. and he didnt cooperate...wow.
> >> i DO trust him NOW!!
> >
> >And, above is your entire argument. You don't trust SH, so we should
> >invade him. Tell me, do you treat your neighbors that way? 8)
>
> ROFLMAO!!!'
>
> 'other than that, mrs. lincoln, how did you like the play'?
>
> you're overlooking his historical record in developing WMD's.

No I am not. You are overlooking SH's entire record. He did not deal
with the Muslim fundies.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> >But, he never did. So, Iraq's history says that he wouldn't have.
> >>
> >> tomorrow is another day. your trust in the stability of hussein is
> >> very touching.
> >
> >Another argument based on "what if..."
>
> and, of course, history.
>
> a minor point
No, just "what if".
>
> >> >>
> >> >> back atcha. you are ignoring the fact hussein could make WMD's
> >> >> available to terrorists. i'm not sure WHY you'd want to gamble like
> >> >> that, but it's the logical outcome of your position.
> >> >
> >> >Germany or France or Russia could also make WMD available to terrorists.
> >> >Do you want to invade them as well?
> >>
> >> neither germany nor france nor russia fought US troops in 1991.
> >
> >But, to quote you, that is ancient history-15 years ago.
>
> and hussein is the same dictator he was 15 years ago.
>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >But, the fact is that he didn't, and we had good reason to believe that
> >> >he hadn't. That is what the UN inspectors were saying.
> >>
> >> 20/20 hindsight.
> >
> >They were saying it at the time.
>
> no, they weren't. they said they needed more time to complete their
> investigation.

And, they had found no WMD at the time. You seem to forget that. And,
SH was cooperating, even destroying missiles that had a range slightly
over what was allowed. You seem to forget that as well. Your memory is
very convenient, it seems.
>
> >> >The report also says he didn't have them in 2003, and hadn't had them
> >> >since the mid '90s.
> >>
> >> BFD.
> >
> >You trivialize that information only because it goes against your
> >argument.
>
> and you ignore history because it destroys yours.

Actually, history supports my argument. You just ignore that part of
history.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Sort of blows your theory, I would say.
> >> >
> >> >Still, the report says no WMD.
> >>
> >> until they did. they retained the intellectual capital to do so.
> >
> >So do a bunch of other countries. Do you say we should invade them?
>
> SH was the only one besides korea and iran to actually develop them.

And, he had none at the time of the invasion. You conveniently forget
that fact.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> the sanctions were ALREADY leaking badly. they enabled SH to get
> >> rocket motors, for example. and 2-3 years down the road??
> >
> >And yet another argument based on "what if...". Sorry, but those
> >arguments just don't hold water.
>
> yeah i know. you'd prefer to wait until a mushroom cloud envelops NYC.
> sorry. i'm not gonna feel warm and fuzzy 'cuz you trust hussein.

And you lie about what I have said. Why?
>
> >> >>
> >> ah. he SHOWED no intentions. at least as far as we know. today. while
> >> HE was in power and his sons were not. all those variables which could
> >> affect the US...and you think we should just ignore them
> >
> >And again you use the either attack or ignore choice. You ignore that
> >there are things that could be done between those two extremes.
>
> and those were done over the last 10 years w/o results.

No results? Again you are misinformed (I am being kind). SH got rid of
his WMD, and hadn't attacked his neighbors. Aren't those the results we
wanted? Plus, his army was severely degreded. Aren't those the results
we wanted?
>
> >>
> >> As I said, SH's main goal was to stay in
> >> >power. He knew that if WMD could be traced back to him, he was a goner.
> >>
> >> what hussein KNEW and how he acted depended on the weather, the phases
> >> of the moon, and how early roosters crowed in baghdad.
> >
> >Evidence for this assertion?
>
> ok. tell us what articles he wrote for 'foreign affairs' that lead you
> to conclude he was a valuable member of the international community.

Again, you misrepresent my position. I have never said anything good
about Hussein, and you should know it.
> >>
> >> a poor basis on which to risk the security of the US.
> >
> >It appears your only argument is "what if..." Again, I say that is not a
> >good basis on which to invade a country.
>
> and your ignorance of history is a poor basis on which to ignore
> hussein.

And, your ignorance of history was a poor basis to attack another
country.
> >>
> >> how to verify? when both blix and chirac say ONLY the presence of US
> >> troops forced him to comply...
> >
> >Keep forces in the area? Hey, there's a novel thought.
>
> uh, where? and who's gonna pay? and what do we do 2 years hence??
>
> answer to those questions?

Keeping forces in the area is much cheaper than the war we have gotten
into.
>
> >> >
> >> >And, you are trying to put words into my mouth. I have never said thad,
> >> >and indeed have said just the opposite. However, he was not a threat
> >> >worth going to war over.
> >>
> >> until he was. until a terrorist weapon was released in the US,
> >> courtesy of SH...
> >
> >Again, the "what if" argument.
>
> yep. that is my argument. your assertion that, since you dont believe
> it, it's not valid is not an argument. it's an emotional response.

Yes, your argument is an emotional response. Because, by logic, it
breaks down, completely.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >He had the chance to give WMD to terrorists, and didn't before Gulf War
> >> >I. He has always stayed very clear of Islamic fundamentalists, mainly
> >> >because he knew they were a danger to him as well.
> >>
> >> unless, of course, he would come to think the US was a bigger threat.
> >>
> >> you can guarantee that?
> >
> >And again, the "what if" argument.
>
> yep.

If that is all you have, perhaps you should plan a strategic retreat at
this point.

8^)
>
> >> >>
> >> >> it's unfortunate. but if we'd gambled your way, the outcome could
> >> >> have been worse. if hussein DID develop WMD's, DID arm terrorists and
> >> >> these weapons were used, the outcome would have been millions of lives
> >> >> lost.
> >> >
> >> >And if pigs could fly, they'd be pigeons. You have enough "if"s there.
> >>
> >> correct. absolutely correct. on on that risk assessment hangs the
> >> security of the united states.
> >
> >Yet, your assessment is a house of cards. All "if he does this, and if
> >he does that". if even one of those "what if"s doesn't occur, your house
> >of cards collapses.
>
> and if it DOESNT collapse, we have YOUR scenaria where NYC disappears
> along with 7,000,000 americans.

Bull***. If your complete argument is to misrepresent my position, you
better plan that strategic retreat now.
>
> i can see why you'd want to wait.
>
> where do you live?

I see reading and memory aren't your strongpoints. Look at my sig...

However, most of my family is from the NYC area, in NJ. And, I shall be
going there in less than a week.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I think you are very wrong here. There is much about them we don't
> >> >understand. I believe you are being very superficial here.
> >>
> >> oh brother. you are being either disingenuous or ignorant.
> >>
> >> have you READ ibn tamiyya? qutb? azzam? why do you DISCOUNT islamist
> >> fascism? do you think arabs are stupid?
> >
> >
> >I haven't, I don't and I don't.
>
> no kiddin'.
>
> >> >
> >> >The second part of your strategy is the only thing that offers any hope.
> >> >We can't just kill them willy-nilly.
> >>
> >> we can kill them when they prepare to attack.
> >
> >Which Hussein was not doing.
>
> tomorrow is another day.

Again, what if. It really is a poor argument. And, I feel you know it,
because you are reduced to misrepresenting what I have said.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> except the conditions for the 'could have' were operative. SH was in
> >> power. the sanctions were leaky. he was hostile to the US. he had had
> >> a WMD programs, etc
> >
> >Oops, there goes your house of cards right there. He did not have a WMD
> >program.
>
> today he didn't
>
> tomorrow?

So, you'll attack any country that may have WMD tomorrow? Good foreign
policy, NOT!
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I don't know what I would say. The fact is that it hasn't happened, and,
> >> >wrt Iraq, was very unlikely to happen.
> >>
> >> ah. very unlikely. now i feel better.
> >
> >Again, you advocate attacking other countries based on a string of "what
> >if"s.
>
> yep. he HAD a WMD program. we THOUGHT, along with the french, that he
> STILL had one.

Yet, the evidence said he didn't. Why do you continue to ignore that
fact.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >But if Sudan could manufacture WMD (as you said they could), then anyone
> >> >could. Sorry, but your "program" has no logic.
> >>
> >> sudan's program was funded by bin laden and it was attacked, remember?
> >
> >Doesn't change what I said. If they had the infrastructure...
>
> and when they DO develop the infrastructure they're placing themselves
> in the crosshairs.

Of course, every country with a chemical industry has the
infrastructure...
>
> >>
> >> hardly. what i'm saying is that countries ignore their constitutions
> >> all the time including, perhaps, our own.
> >
> >But you can't use the Iraqi constitution as support for your argument
> >and then say that they can ignore it. They could also ignore it by
> >installing Shi'ite radicals, who would align themselves with Iran, which
> >would be a much worse case than having a weak SH in Iraq.
>
> i have never made an argument for anything based on the iraqi
> constitution.

True. Your argument was that they would ignore their constitution.
Somehow, that seems to be a worse argument.
Now, if you want to see where I live, look below:

--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

.