NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Hearing from bin Laden gives Bush a boost? So....killing Zarqawi doesn't give Bush a boost, but hearing from an uncaptured (dead or alive) bin Laden is staged to give him a boost. I fail to follow the logic.

bin Laden reminds people of 9/11 and the president who stood on rubble putting his arm around a fireman. Zarqawi reminds people of a failed, unjustified Iraq war.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Nice to see things back to normal around here. Welcome home, Leo.

[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.

To date, around 2,500 American soldiers have died, and approximately 80,000 Iraqi civilians, in the war that became "necessary" from the 3,000 deaths. This is to say nothing of deaths in Afghanistan. And yet, international terrorist casualties in America remain at that same 3,000.

If the U.S. is being successful at preventing further terrorist attacks in America, I congratulate it ... but none of it is being done through warfare.

Why war?

Luckily, I won't be around to read more of scaeagles very loose rationale for bloody, murderous war. I was beginning to like the guy, he's very nice in person ... but it kills me to read how cavalier he is with other peoples' lives and misery.

[scaeagles]

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.

Luckily, I won't be around to read more of scaeagles very loose rationale for bloody, murderous war. I was beginning to like the guy, he's very nice in person ... but it kills me to read how cavalier he is with other peoples' lives and misery.

Why was it so important to have a war on Japan? Were they really so dangerous? The attack on Pearl Harbor killed just over 2700 people.

To answer my own question, it was because they had designs on much more than Pearl Harbor. Radical islamic terrorists have their agenda as well.

If disagreement or my "cavalier attitude" causes you not to like me, so be it. I will not lose sleep. I do fail to see anything suggesting I am cavalier. All I am suggesting is that Saddam was the one who chose war and no one else.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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

So Bush didn't choose to ignore the prewar intelligence that indicated that Iraq's chemical and nuclear capabilities were moving backwards? He didn't choose to set an agenda from the beginning of his presidency to find a justification for war? Powell didn't choose to ignore his own missgivings and present spun intelligence to the UN? Rice didn't choose to identify a photograph of empty tubes as parts for nuclear missiles when in fact the intelligence report she had said that they could be used for nuclear missiles in a pinch, but weren't designed for it? Wow, Sadaam had more power than I thought if he made all those people do that.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.