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

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.

>>
>> >>
>>
>> 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.

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.

>>
>> >>
>>
>> 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?

>> 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.

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?

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

>> >>
>> >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.

>>

>> >
>> >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

>> >>
>> >> 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.

>> >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.

>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.

>>
>> >>
>>
>> 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.

>> >>
>> 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.

>>
>> 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.

>>
>> 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.

>>
>>
>> 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?

>> >
>> >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.

>>
>> >
>> >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.

>> >>
>> >> 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.

i can see why you'd want to wait.

where do you live?

>>
>> >
>> >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.

>>
>> >>
>>
>> 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?

>>
>> >
>> >
>> >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.

>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >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.

>>
>> 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.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: It all comes full-circle ... WMDs found in Iraq
    ... >>> islamists dont differentiate between afghanistan and iraq. ... >>> attack on any country where muslims predominate is an attack on islam. ... >>> available to terrorists. ... >>Germany or France or Russia could also make WMD available to terrorists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: It all comes full-circle ... WMDs found in Iraq
    ... >> islamists dont differentiate between afghanistan and iraq. ... >> attack on any country where muslims predominate is an attack on islam. ... >> available to terrorists. ... >Germany or France or Russia could also make WMD available to terrorists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: hollywood found to be ignorant was WMDs found in Iraq
    ... there were WMD and that the president kept quiet about a discovery that ... could have blown his critics out of the water to keep terrorists in the ... meantime while he kept it quiet, he was buying time from the terrorists ... the supposed WMD is actually yellowcake - not usable without ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: hollywood found to be ignorant was WMDs found in Iraq
    ... saying that there were WMD and that the president kept ... critics out of the water to keep terrorists in the dark. ... Republican nomination for president this year, ... quiet, he was buying time from the terrorists to get all ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: What If...
    ... individual piece of subsequently disproved WMD intelligence, ... I reject the contention that since the group of "neoconservatives" ... possibility that one reason for their desire to overthrow Hussein was ... > it was) vis a vis the fact of intelligence analysts who ...
    (rec.music.gdead)