Lousy Political Timing

[BT]

.The fact that he used a weapon against victims who were in no position to wreak massive retaliation (anihilation, actually) upon him and his country is NOT an argument that makes it any more likely that he would use the same weapon against a country that COULD physically anihilate Iraq.

He wouldn't have to do it. All he would have to do is supply a willing accomplice who had no qualms about doing it. Perhaps an organization not directly attached to any particular nation state. Any organizations spring to mind?

[domer]

Michael's caricature of a mind produces a caricature of Iraq. The oil issue factors in to decisions, of course, in this way: not so much as to US "control" of the Iraqi output but so to keep the political situation in the Middle East conducive to a continued flow of oil. This is not, except corruptly, about oil companies and fat cat profits; instead, regarding this factor, it is, in a very real sense, designed to keep our nation's lifeblood flowing, and thus averting major dislocation, suffering and death of average Joes like me. But beyond oil, only a true incorrigible cynic would fail to understand the genuine fear and the reflexive impulse to fight back at the appropriate targets caused by the 911 attacks. The rationales offered in the beginning were not fig leaves as much as they were the chimera of impassioned minds (leading, I must add, to a wrong policy choice on Iraq). The successive rationales, laudable if successful, were occasioned by the new situation that prevailed in Iraq post-invasion. The idea now, according to all well-meaning people, is to end the matter most successfully according to the highest principles that can be brought to bear on the problem.

[Amianthus]

I found it kind of interesting that the only people who argue against oil as the main reason for the invasion and occupation are the usual suspects, sirs and plane.

That's because the rest of us are sick and tired of making that same argument again.

Just like most of us don't argue the "Bush is Hitler" thing anymore.

Those who continue to make the claims are just looking silly.

[Michael Tee]

<<He wouldn't have to do it. All he would have to do is supply a willing accomplice who had no qualms about doing it. Perhaps an organization not directly attached to any particular nation state. Any organizations spring to mind?>>

Yeah, I can think of a few.  Mostly religious fundamentalist nuts who excoriated Saddam and his Arab Socialism and his secular Western ways for years, but he could use them - - and then be blackmailed for the rest of his life, with "Hey want the Americans to know where those WMD came from?"  In fact his whole future existence and that of his country would be mortgaged to some group of fundamentalist nutcakes in addition to the risk of the U.S. finding out anyway.  Nice prospect.  And what would be the benefit of all that anyway?  Could ANY group permanently destroy the U.S.?  The U.S. would survive any strike made on it and still be able to do the same nefarious deeds as always, only with even less restraint.

Makes about as much sense as any of your other absurdist crypto-fascist insanities, but hey, keep 'em coming, I could use the target practice.

[Michael Tee]

<<Michael's caricature of a mind . . . ??

Was that necessary?  Do you honestly believe your mind is in ANY way superior to mine?

[domer]

Do you honestly think your reality is in any way superior to mine?

[sirs]

<<It can't be any of the reasons that have been made public and on record, logical, and completely within the realm of common sense.  Nooooooooooooo.  It has to be something completely nefarious & sinister>>

In other words:  We should believe in the multiple reasons that the U.S. government has given for its actions.

No, in other words, we should believe in the primary reason that was given, and STILL is, for it's action in going into Iraq

Those reasons are logical and completely within the realm of common sense.  It is both logical and common sense to believe that Iraq  would attack the U.S.A.,....

Start with a false premise, and.....well you know the rest

[BT]

In fact his whole future existence and that of his country would be mortgaged to some group of fundamentalist nutcakes in addition to the risk of the U.S. finding out anyway.

And if he wasn't concerned with that? Suicide bombers aren't concerned with what happens to them, and Saddam supported them, why should he care what happens to him or Iraq. The damage inflicted is what would count.

Adjust you sights, commie boy. You miss more than you hit. And you certainly do need the practice.

[Religious Dick]

.The fact that he used a weapon against victims who were in no position to wreak massive retaliation (anihilation, actually) upon him and his country is NOT an argument that makes it any more likely that he would use the same weapon against a country that COULD physically anihilate Iraq.

He wouldn't have to do it. All he would have to do is supply a willing accomplice who had no qualms about doing it. Perhaps an organization not directly attached to any particular nation state. Any organizations spring to mind?

And where's a precident for a terrorist organization using any such weapons? Most military grade weapons are designed to be used by, uh, militaries. I doubt that a pickup truck with an ICBM strapped to the back could pass down the interstate unnoticed. And AFAIK, the terrorists don't have an air force at their disposal to drop them on us.

Any weapon that would actually have a practical use to a terrorist group is almost certainly available from other sources besides Saddam.

[BT]

And where's a precident for a terrorist organization using any such weapons?

The ricin attacks in Tokyo.

And yes you can make your own Ricin.

[sirs]

And where's a precident for a terrorist organization using any such weapons?

The ricin attacks in Tokyo.  And yes you can make your own Ricin.

And using Tee's "tee leaves technique", one can easily assume that Saddam's precarious position, surrounded by coalition forces may have made him much more susceptable with selling some of the WMD he was known to have had, that could easily have fit in the trunk of a car or even just suitcases.

[domer]

I take Michael's side on this one, though I did not at the time of the invasion, while still articulating these reservations. Reduced to a nutshell, one has to factor likeliness of a negative event (gas attack, for example) with its rational severity and weigh them against the costs of going to war to prevent it. It is not worth saving 25 American lives, I suggest, while killing 4000 innocent Iraqis to accomplish that protection. And remember, the latter sentence addresses predictions, estimates, guesses, speculation ... until the act of war actually occurs. Bush's preemption theory is flawed.

[Michael Tee]

<<Do you honestly think your reality is in any way superior to mine?>>

Thanks for not answering the question, which I'll take as a no, the only rational answer you could have given.  In answer to yours, which I'll take to mean is my version of reality any way superior to yours, I'd have to say it seems a lot more likely, for the reasons I've already articulated in this thread.  Which, as far as I've read, remain uncontradicted by any rational argument.

[BT]

I wasn't using the terror connection as justification for the war.

I do disagree that it was unlikely that Saddams fingerprint could not possibly be on a showcase terror attack upon the United States. Not necessarily 9-11 but quite possibly OKC.

Regime change didn't cost more than 100 soldiers lives. The downshift from war to policing is where the lives came in.

I certainly would have managed the war differently than Bush, most assuredly if the rational for war was about controlling the flow of oil.

[domer]

Not to blanch at a good-natured fight, I note the following: if you believe your reality is superior to mine, then, in turn, I assert that my mind is superior to yours, for it is the instrument that conceives and perceives my superior reality.