Aruman wrote:Crav wrote:Aruman wrote:Crav wrote:Aruman wrote:I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:
Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?
Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.
Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
Yes because disarming an unarmed country certainly did wonders towards trying to stop terrorist from getting WMD. I guess they'll just have to settle for getting them from North Korea, Iran(in the near future), Pakistan or former Soviet regions.
Unarmed?
1000+ say otherwise. If these people can kill this many with small arms and explosives, imagine what could have been done with more 'dangerous' weapons.
Nice, we're in a discussion on terrorists and WMD and you compare it to the insurgents fighting in Iraq. Since you bring it up though, I wonder how many of those 1000+ would have died if we hadn't invaded under false pretenses, which btw is what is being discussed.
Since I brought it up?
You said/implied Saddam was unarmed when we invaded. Liar!
The number that died under 'false pretenses' probably would have been much greater if Saddam had had stockpiles of WMD. IMO be glad that he didn't have them ready for use. That 1000+ number probably would be more like 10,000+.
Yea and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when hopping. From all the information we have gathered in Iraq, Saddam did not have stock piles of WMD. More importantly his nuclear program was a decade or so from being able to produce any weapons. As can be seen in the article posted on this thread, we were aware of this, we had intelligence saying as much that was as credible if not more so than the intelligence, most of which has turned out to be false, that supported he had nuclear capability and stock piles of non-nuclear WMDs.
Aruman wrote:
You don't get it that the invasion didn't occur solely on the basis of suspected WMD. I'm fairly certain that Saddam had happily thumbed his nose at the UN sanctions for 10+ years prior to the invasion.
Actually the invasion did occur solely on the basis of suspected WMDs, more to the point the statements that lead the public to believe that Iraq was or would soon be a nuclear threat. You yourself expressed this very sentiment.
Aruman wrote:
I don't recall the exact quote that Condoleeza Rice used, but it was something along the lines of:
Would you rather the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?
Kind of puts things in a different perspective when you think about it.
Even though WMD of this type haven't been found, given Saddam's history, I truly believe 'Better safe than sorry' could be applied.
The only reason that American families would allow their sons and daughters to be killed was because they were scared that more people would have died if Iraq had nuclear weapons, the fact that there was substantial evidence that showed they didn't have or couldn't produce nuclear weapons and was ignored is quite frankly deplorable.
As far the using the excuse that Iraq had ignored UN sanctions for 10+ years, it would have probably given better justification, except that we did not have UN approval for our invasion.
I wish Saddam talked like a James Bond villain.
