CIA: Iraq not a threat to U.S. unless provoked.

[Jon Miller]

the rest of uerope could build them within a year (if they have not already)

I count that as having them

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Support for this war will continue to drop. Personally, I've been against it from the beginning, so I can't really answer your question as to whether this CIA report will change any (American) minds.

A lot of the problem is that a scary number of people buy into the "he has WoMD, so we gotta go get him!" The problem with that argument, of course, is that a LOT of countries have WoMD, including ourselves. We also remain the only nation to ever use nukes on other people. But the pro-war Americans I've talked to don't give a good goddamn about that, and their fall-back argument is that Saddam is evil.

If we took the money that would be used for this Iraq war and dumped into Afganistan and Pakistan, we might manage to really hurt Al-Quaida and other groups that are out for our blood. But we won't.

-Arrian

[Jac de Molay]

There's gonna be the use of those NBC weapons, to some extent, anyway. The fragmentation of husseins forces during the conflict is bound to create it.

[SlowwHand]

"Iraq not a threat to U.S. unless provoked."

That's exactly how I feel, in reverse.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
The problem with that argument, of course, is that a LOT of countries have WoMD, including ourselves. We also remain the only nation to ever use nukes on other people.
-Arrian

how is that a problem with that argument at all?

in my mind that is a good reason to not let those nations which have reason to be against us to have WoMD (I am speaking from a US perspective)

if I was in europe I would not give a rat's ass

Jon Miller

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Fez
Wrong again DD. Leftism has no stand anywhere in this world. It is the fungus and brings out the worst in the world.

My mistake.
The supreme logic of that statement proves me wrong.

[Saint Marcus]

in my mind that is a good reason to not let those nations which have reason to be against us to have WoMD

What about China?
Pakistan? (say fundies take over)
North Korea?

[Arrian]

JM,

Well, the inherent problem I thought would be obvious is the blatant hypocrisy of it.

Beyond that, however, in order to say "only we can have nukes!" we would have to do an awful lot of fighting. China, for instance, won't just roll over and give up their nukes. Nor will Russia, or any nuclear power for that matter. So we have to beat the nukes (or bio/chem) out of them, or maybe bribe them into giving them up (North Korea?).

We can do this to Iraq, but not to everyone. We could do it to Israel, but won't.

If the principle is "any nation that has WoMD and is anti-US and therefore might use them on us or give them to terrorists to use on us must be relieved of those WoMDs" then like I said... we'll have to do a lot of fighting.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


What about China?
Pakistan? (say fundies take over)
North Korea?

I think we shold move against those as well (not always in the same way as against Iraq though)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

it is not hypocritic since I think we would go against China if it was at all feasible

and we are going against the other nations which are anti US and have WoMD

so it is not hypocritical at all (don't blame us for not taking on a country that we cannot currently beat)0

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

As a follow-up to my last post, I see WoMDs as the real world version of Pandora's Box. The Box is open folks, and no matter how hard we try, we're not gonna close it again.

JM, did you see the articles recently about the US supplying Iraq with the germs they used for their bioweapons? The Iraqis claimed to need the stuff for public help purposes and got them via our civilian facilities like the CDC. Like I said - Pandora's Box.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

so we should support everyone having WoMD since if we do nothing they can get them?

you make no sense

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Hmm, allow me to try again:

I don't believe we have the right to decide who has WoMD and who doesn't. Beyond that, I believe that any attempt to do so will fail.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

I don't know about right

reality suggests that it would be best that none but us had any

and if not that, than none of those who dislike us have any

I am just thinking about saving lives here

Jon Miller

[Chris 62]

"Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack at this moment are low -- in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD -- there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build," Tenet said.

I think this passage in the article is the most pertinent Boris.

I don't recall the Bush administration declaring that any nation with WMD would be invaded, that is just a common scare tactic fron the anti-Bush crowd.

Let me add that in NO US WAR were losses "popular", so saying people wouldn't support such a war is to only state the obvious, nobody supports seeing our soldiers dead.

I really don't think more need be said, that paragraph from your article pretty much sums up the reason for the Iraq war, and pretty much nullifies the "we are in no danger" opinion.