NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Just why is it so important to have a war against international terrorism anyway? Is it really so dangerous? Al Queda has inflicted exactly one successful attack on U.S. soil, killing around 3,000 people.

That's just a bizarre thing to say. How many deaths would it take before retaliation is warranted? How many people do you get to kill before you move from "cost of doing business" to "nuiance that needs to be dealt with"?

Sounds like you're awfully cavalier about lives as well.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

"Most of the world knows A. You are pretty much the only one saying B. Show us B is not true and we will not be forced to dismantle and dispose of B."

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

All I am suggesting is that Saddam was the one who chose war and no one else.

Considering that Saddam engaged in the exact same behavior for almost 13 years without war resulting I'm guessing that someone else must have changed the equation.

If I tell you to let me in your house or I'll shoot you, your death isn't a suicide.

[scaeagles]

I'm trying to stop, but she just makes me keep doing it.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

If I tell you to let me in your house or I'll shoot you, your death isn't a suicide.

I've committed a violent crime. A home invasion robbery. The police extracted me and slapped my hand and put me on probation. I repeatedly violate my probation. A tipster tells them I have a bomb and hostages in my house. I won't let them in to check it out so they break down the door.

Who is responsible?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

So Bush didn't choose to ignore the prewar intelligence that indicated that Iraq's chemical and nuclear capabilities were moving backwards?

Lots of conflicting intelligence. His choice? Force Saddam to verify. Saddam would not verify in spite of his previous commitment to do so.

As far as something in the equation changing, I agree. The change was a new doctrine of preemption based on the 9/11 attacks. Preemption over what a sovereign state can do? How dare we, you say. Except Iraq wasn't truly sovereign at the time. They were under the conditions of a cease fire.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'm trying to stop, but she just makes me keep doing it.

You joke, but your equation is a loaded question. It presupposes wrong doing while failing to establish it. It was worded purposefully such that the only direct responses were "Yes, come and dismantle the weapons we've been making" or "No, I won't let you see the weapons we've been making." The third option of "I never started beating my wife" was eliminated.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

You joke, but your equation is a loaded question. It presupposes wrong doing while failing to establish it.

No need to due to the conditions of the cease fire. Proof was the responsibiliy of Saddam, no one else.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I've committed a violent crime. A home invasion robbery. The police extracted me and slapped my hand and put me on probation. I repeatedly violate my probation. A tipster tells them I have a bomb and hostages in my house. I won't let them in to check it out so they break down the door.

Who is responsible?

The police. If it turns out they barged in and shot the guy only to find that he had no hostages and no bombs and hadn't really done anything more than be rude to police when they demanded entry and that the tipsters was his ex-wife who never really liked him.

[scaeagles]

Except the conditions of his probation include submitting to searches. I didn't say they shot him, only that they broke down the door. OK - I'll add that he went and hid in a closet.