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

[Jon Miller]

outside of executing a murderer I cannot be sure that he will never murder again

that doesn't mean that I let all murders go free since some will escape

no, I try to keep them from escaping as much as possible and try to capture those that do

and those that do get loose, I hope won't cause anybody anymore damage (but I have done all I can)

Jon Miller
(imagine Rwanda with bomb, or Serbia)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by 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.

hmm, I am bavk completely in favor of war again (I never read the article, just read peoples posts about it)

Jon Miller

[Chris 62]

They may be right Jon, but these days, I don't believe "wait and see" as a viable or smart option.

[Arrian]

There is another serious problem with the pro-war argument:

It assumes that Saddam Hussein is, in fact, a lunatic.

If he used a WoMD on the US, or gave one to terrorists and was found out, I have very little doubt that we'd turn Iraq into a sheet of glass. It's this little thing called "Mutually Assured Destruction."

We know that a terrorist doesn't care about such things - and the terrorists are the ones that we should be worried about. But the leader of a country, bloodthirsty dictator though he may be, has something to lose.

-Arrian

"I'm not afraid of the man who wants 20 nuclear warheads. I'm terrified of the man who only wants 1." - The Peacemaker - an otherwise crappy movie

[Saint Marcus]

isn't that from The Sum of All Fears?

[DinoDoc]

Yes.

[Arrian]

Nope, it's The Peacemaker (George Clooney and Nicole Kidman). I've never seen The Sum of All Fears, which apparently in no way resembles the book bearing the same name, which I have read.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Iraq is against us

therefore Iraq is more of a danger than Pakistan (who is not officially against us)

Jon Miller

Saudi Arabia is theoretically an ally. They have been funding an organization which has been at war with the US since 1993. Iraq has left us alone. Our allies have attacked us. Our allies are far more dangerous to us than our enemies.

[David Floyd]

I'd just like to point out that the premise of this article is saying the same thing I've been saying for weeks - that Iraq is not a threat to the US, unless we provoke them.

Yes, I grant you that means Iraq could be a potential threat to US soldiers if we send US soldiers to invade Iraq, but it is nonsensical to say we need to send US soldiers to Iraq in order to prevent that

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Arrian
There is another serious problem with the pro-war argument:
It assumes that Saddam Hussein is, in fact, a lunatic.

There is a question of whether he's a lunatic, yes, but consider this:
He has TWICE attacked neibhoring states, and has used Mustard gas on rebels in his own nation, is an active funder of known a terrorist organization (Hammas, it's irrelivant of your stance on Israel/Palestine, they are a terror group, I think we all agree on that).
During the Gulf war he lobbed missiles on Israel, which wasn't part of the forces arrayed against him.
To sum up, two offensive wars of conquest (both failed) and crimes against humanity.
I believe that qaulifies as a lunatic.

If he used a WoMD on the US, or gave one to terrorists and was found out, I have very little doubt that we'd turn Iraq into a sheet of glass. It's this little thing called "Mutually Assured Destruction."

I cannot disagree more strongly.
To destroy Baghdad or any city in Iraq with Nuclear weapons, even if Saddam was behind it, would be a crime against humanity.
All it would do is provide the cause that many people here and elsewhere fear is lacking.
I WILL NEVER support a nuclear responce to a terror attck.

We know that a terrorist doesn't care about such things - and the terrorists are the ones that we should be worried about. But the leader of a country, bloodthirsty dictator though he may be, has something to lose.

That's assuming he's rational, and truly believes he's in danger.
We have been yelling at him for 11 years, I think he views the west as full of hot air.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
During the Gulf war he lobbed missiles on Israel, which wasn't part of the forces arrayed against him.

That actually would have been a smart tactic if Israel had retaliated against the assault because it would have fractured the coalition against him.

[Saint Marcus]

you're talking like the US cares about commiting warcrimes or not.

[David Floyd]

To destroy Baghdad or any city in Iraq with Nuclear weapons, even if Saddam was behind it, would be a crime against humanity.

Ah, so you finally agree with me WRT Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Excellent

He has TWICE attacked neibhoring states, and has used Mustard gas on rebels in his own nation, is an active funder of known a terrorist organization (Hammas, it's irrelivant of your stance on Israel/Palestine, they are a terror group, I think we all agree on that).
During the Gulf war he lobbed missiles on Israel, which wasn't part of the forces arrayed against him.
To sum up, two offensive wars of conquest (both failed) and crimes against humanity.

OK, but what about this:
The US has attacked neighboring and non-neighboring states on many occasions (in the Western Hemisphere alone, we've attacked Canada, Mexico, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, and Spain).
The US, during the Cold War, tested various chemical weapons on US soil, affecting several thousand US soldiers and civilians, according to recently declassified documents.
The US has funded various organizations in the past as well, including Saddam's regime, the Mudjahedin who became the Taliban, and various other militaristic anti-democracy forces around the world.
And, the kicker, we used both atomic weapons and napalm against Japanese civilians.
To sum up, countless offensive wars and crimes against humanity.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ah, so you finally agree with me WRT Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Excellent

No, I don't Floydy.

[David Floyd]

No, I don't Floydy.

Hmm, then I'm afraid I don't see how you can oppose destroying Baghdad if Iraq uses WoMD's against us first