Quote:
Originally posted by Hwed
Man, Deon Sanders in his prime couldn't keep up with the liberals carrying these goalposts down the field.
|
I got seven words for you:
"weapons of mass destruction related program activities"
-George W. Bush
This blog post has a good rundown. Some tfp members might have moved the goalpost a bit (from "no weapons at all" to the weaker claim of "not enough weapons to go to war over," which are sorta variations on each other), but the prime mover of goal posts lives at 1600 PA Ave.
analog noted that your post was a bit of a cheap shot, and that it was a poor argument. I tend to agree, but I think the whole issue of just where the goalpost lies is quite relevant. It might be the only meaningful question left in the thread now that we know the artillery shells are not loaded with chemical weapons.
In my mind, no amount of chemical weapons are worth going to war over. They are difficult to use, and are only likely to result in localized casualties. Just look at the Tokyo gas attacks a few years back. With those out of the way, we have three things to consider: biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Strong, communicable biological agents are second only to nukes in killing capacity. I would say that only in the case of working nukes or potent biological agents should we go to war.
I can't justify invading a country and causing plenty of certain deaths in order to mabye prevent a chemical/radiological attack that is rather unlikely to kill more than 1000 people.