It does not matter if Iraq has or had WOMD's or not at this point

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Stuie


Cool. If it's not about WOMD, when do we take out Mugabe?

Africa wasn't addressed by Proposition 1441, Iraq was addressed.
And no, I refuse yet again to go and look up each individual resolution that Hussein broke, thereby causing 1441 to be implemented.
There were many.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
Hey stuie, you started it by asking

"What country are you living in?"

I answered. You implied that it's impossible to have had success in THIS COUNTRY since Bush took office. I HAVE and many other people have too. I can't help if it if you haven't. So I assume you won't vote for him. I will be. Thanks for making my point that people will vote how the PERSONALLY have percieved the improvement or FAILURES during the last four years.

Well, don't go stuffing all the ballots though, with illegal votes from ferrets, ok?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ned, just a sidenote, everyone has Anthrax, everyone.

Large stockpiles of weaponized anthrax?

Really?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So you are saying we should invade France because theoretically they could nuke us? You can't invade other countries on maybes (well, I guess we just did). Should I be able to kill you because you could, conceivably kill me? How would the law treat me?

Che, one has to assess the likelihood of France giving al Qaeda WMD for use against the US, not their likelihood of direct use.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


Except there is evidence to the contrary:
1. Saddam has never participated in a terrorist attack against the US, and there was no good reason for him to do so before a war started.
2. Saddam's main target for the past decade has been Islamists.

Thus, only a "blithering idiot" would assert the likelyhood of a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection, given that there is no evidence such a connection existed (hell, even the gov't has publicly denied that a connection exists).

1. As far as we knew, this is true.
2. I don't think this is true. I thought Saddam was emphasizing his religion far more in the last several years to gain support of the likes of OBL.

I am also willing to bet that OBL soft-peddled Saddam's secular rule in the past few years and actually supported his defiance of the US. Only if OBL kept up a hard line denunciation of Saddam would I believe the covert alliance theory to be utter nonsense.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by rah
Hey stuie, you started it by asking

"What country are you living in?"

I answered. You implied that it's impossible to have had success in THIS COUNTRY since Bush took office. I HAVE and many other people have too. I can't help if it if you haven't. So I assume you won't vote for him. I will be. Thanks for making my point that people will vote how the PERSONALLY have percieved the improvement or FAILURES during the last four years.

Point taken. Mea culpa.

[Pekka]

Ned, absolutely. If not in 'ready' then at least ability to make them ready, fast, and produce more. Absolutely, you can bet your butt on it .

[Ramo]

2. I don't think this is true. I thought Saddam was emphasizing his religion far more in the last several years to gain support of the likes of OBL.

It doesn't matter what you think is true; in reality as opposed to in Ned-land, Saddam had always been extremely repressive towards Islamists in Iraq, and they accordingly had been militantly resisting the government.

I am also willing to bet that OBL soft-peddled Saddam's secular rule in the past few years and actually supported his defiance of the US.

Once again, it doesn't matter what you suspect as there's no evidence to suggest this.

Only if OBL kept up a hard line denunciation of Saddam

He has. In fact, in one of the tapes OBL/al-Qaeda have released, Saddam was called an infidel.

Che, one has to assess the likelihood of France giving al Qaeda WMD for use against the US, not their likelihood of direct use.

Which was pretty much nil in the case of Iraq.

[Elok]

Have some sense, people. Saddam was not a total idiot. Only a total idiot would give a weapon capable of destroying an entire country to men as intrinsically unreliable as terrorists. Why the deuce would he send an expensive weapon underground and out of his control for a mission with a high chance of failure, in the hands of troops who might conceivably switch loyalties after hitting the hookah too hard and seeing a vision proclaiming him Great Satan Number Two? Saddam, like all dictators, remained in power for a long time only by being totally paranoid about everyone. He personally killed one of his advisors for suggesting he step down temporarily. He didn't really trust one of his own sons with major responsibility because the kid was too crazy. Why would he entrust a nuke, or nerve gas, or anthrax, to terrorists?

[rah]

Originally posted by Stuie


Point taken. Mea culpa.

And my apologies for not seeing your personal observations in your response and just focusing on the averages. Getting old is soooo much fun.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Saddam had always been extremely repressive towards Islamists in Iraq, and they accordingly had been militantly resisting the government.

Let's put it this way, he was hard on anyone who posed a threat to his own regime. Clerics who toed the line inside Iraq were left in power.

Certainly, his support of anti-Israeli terrorism put him in good with many Islamists outside Iraq. Ditto his continued war with the US, the great Satan.

[Ramo]

No, Islamism was a fundamental threat to his regime since he was a secular leader. And clerics had no power.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, Islamism was a fundamental threat to his regime since he was a secular leader. And clerics had no power.

Ramo, I distinctly remember stories about Saddam emphasizing his religion and his courting of Islamists.

One of us is going to have to prove our case through links if we simply continue to disagree on this factual issue.

[Ramo]

Do you understand what Ba'athism is? Arab nationalism and Islamism do not go well together. Saddam and the Islamists were fundamentally opposed; he was repressive towards the Islamists, and the Islamists have been trying to resist his gov't, this is a basic fact. Any halfway-decent source on Middle Eastern politics will tell you that.

[Brundlefly]

Bush thinks there are WMDs on Mars now.