US reports finds that Iraq had no WMD
 

Emphases added by poster.

Interesting reading.


Mr Mephisto

There's two other things that need to be considered here: 1. If Saddam did indeed have wmd's, do you really think that he would've kept them lying around for us to find? Come on now, he would have either A. destroyed them, B. buried them in the desert, or C. sold them to the highest bidder. 2. To support the "buried in the desert point," Iraq is roughly the size of california and most of it, if not all, is desert. A million troops could not search that entire area in ten years, much less the hundred thousand troops we have there now that have been there for just a year and a half, and most of them are in the combat zone. Furthermore, a few months ago, we discovered that the Iraqis had buried a fleet of Mig-25 fighter jets in the desert. If they could bury a squadron of jets in the desert, why couldn't they bury the weapons there as well?

Not that my words will influence anyone's stance on this but, his secret activities prior to the current war (enhancing the range of missiles, storing programs to be reactivated later, misappropriation of oil for food monies, etc) obviously left plenty of room for interpretation and understandably the worst case scenario perspective was taken.

In the end it, the wmd argument doesn't matter to me since my stance has always been that Iraq was about changing the perception of the US as a paper tiger, but I digress...

In terms of the implications of this article, I wonder if there will be an investigation into what happened to the "unaccounted for" weapons then. There is no doubt he had wmds in the past and there is no doubt that he did not prove to any of the weapons inspectors conclusively that all had been destroyed. So, as the article points out, were any of them shipped across the border or were they destroyed?

ok, let's say that's the case. he had weapons and they were hidden or sold off. so how are we safer now? the weapons are out there somewhere and SOMEONE knows where. so what have we gained? all we did was move the weapons form one dangerous regime to another -- hardly seems worth the cost of the war.

But we had no way to know this prior to invasion. By all indications Saddam was hiding his activities and remaining non compliant with the treaty signed to end Gulf War I. Every major intelligence network, country in the Middle East, and our allies believed that he had the wmds.

You, my friend, are absolutely right. Hell, even the democrats thought he had wmds.

How many times does the gov't have to tell us that there were no WMDs before we stop claiming, hypothesizing and hoping that there were?

It's a damn good thing there were no WMDs.

You have to admit that we did blow our load on a pretty low-level threat country. I mean if we were going to attack a country to prove how tough we are why not North Korea or Saudi Arabia? I bet we could show the whole world how tough we are by bombing one of those countries into oblivion.

And all those intelligence networks were echo chambers for others, usually the US intel.

I don't see anything here that hasn't been hashed over at least a dozen times in "Politics".

What would politics be if not hashing and rehashing the same issues? :thumbsup:

Lets attack Iran now, thats where the WMD's were transported!! /sarcasm

Most people know WMD's were just an excuse to go to war. The Bush administration knew damn well Saddam had no WMD's, he did have a lot of oil though.

North Korea has lot of WMD's and is ruled by a total evil dictator why not attack them next ? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact there is no oil and he really does have WMD's.

The Neoncons thought the american public would believe a connection between 9/11 and iraq. They did. So they supported the war. They added some icing to the cake of lies in the form of this WMD nonsense. American Empire annexes Iraq!

It didn't matter whether they were low level or not. They were blatantly opposing the UN and the US in the face of every sanction and penalty imaginable. They were a shining example of the fact that countries could do what they wanted on the world stage with little real impact to their leaders from any sort of retaliation.

Not all of them. Some were Islamic countries who came to the conclusion without the benefit of US intelligence.

This isn't evidence that at one point in time, he did possess wmd's? http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html Next time, try to ask a question that takes less than 5 seconds worth of searching to answer.

No, it's absolutely wrong. There was a LOT of doubt about WMD's - so much so that most nations chose not to join us in our invasion of Iraq. Their best evidence, presented by Colin Powell to the UN, was shaky and circumstantial at best, and the majority of the world saw through it. Of course, the response of Bush and his cowboys was to jeer at these nations (*cough*France*cough*) and encourage national hatred of them, thus proving not only their stupidity, but their immaturity as well.



The United States at one time had slaves. Should we be put on trial now for what we had in the past and got rid of?

The issue was not whether Iraq had WMD's some time in the murky past, but whether Iraq had them at the time the war started. And all signs point to the fact that Iraq did not have them.

Take a look at this:

I wish I could believe that. I still believe some innocent person is gonna die a horrible death after discovering them. Then we will get blamed for not finding the WMD and destroying them.

Amazingly, none of them were as stupid as Bush Jr. to get us into the mess we're in. Hell, even his pop knew better.

Very enlightening post BoddyHammer86.

no amount of rationalization is going to make the facts of the matter change or go away.

bush sold the american people a war on false information, false pretenses.

it would be nice to see supporters of this administration demonstrate a modicum of intellectual courage, abandon excuses and just face this reality...maybe issue a mea culpa...maybe admit that they were chumped and that they have to rethink their positions...maybe even rethink their support for george w. bush....even once would be refreshing.

i do not know anyone else who would continue to support a president who lied to the country about war.

but i do not see it coming.

i take this--and the supporters of the administration on this thread as only an example---as a nice lesson in exactly what the right means by taking personal responsibility--it means holding others to account while refusing to acknowledge anything, even the most outrageous acts, if they are carried out by republicans or by interests friendly to the republicans.

so it appears that personal responsibility for the right only applies to other people.
for them, for their party, for the interests that party represents, anything goes.

that is quite a particular kind of "moral" leadership.
quite a high ground to defend.
you should be proud.

in case you forgot about the opening post, here is a different account:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...307529,00.html

and they were wrong about them too, then. but the big difference is that you didn't see Clinton (or even the elder Bush) attacking and making that a case for war with them.

Why do you hate America Hannukah Harry?

So the US invading Iraq in direct contravention of the UN is going to rectify that, is it?

The weapons inspectors in the weeks prior to the invasion said that there was almost no evidence that he had any WMDs and pleaded with the US to let them finish the job. It's quite obvious that oil was the only thing on Bush's mind and he wasn't going to allow some uppity scientists to obliterate the only excuse he had to get his mitts on the second largest oil reserve in the world.

Well, the UN sure as hell wasn't doing their job despite the fact that he had also thrown out the weapons inspecters numerous times, fired at planes patrolling the two internationally recognized no-fly zones, and was gassing the Kurds in the north, but did the UN ever do anything about it? No

Please don't offer "reasons" such as violating UN resolutions or crimes against humanity as legitimate reasons to invade a sovereign nation unless you're willing and able to explain why other, more blatant and savage violations and crimes by other nations are ignored and even encouraged.

The point of the post you've quoted was that defying a UN resolution so as to administer punishment for defying a UN resolution hardly makes sense. Or do you disagree?

Wait, what? You don't call the missile strikes (which were aimed at the stockpiles they KNEW he had, and DID have at the time) warlike?

Blowing up suspected sites with long range missisles is a whole lot different than an ill conceived invasion. We have the technology to know if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction i.e. satellites, high altitude planes. U.S. planes were patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. They knew they had nothing. Seriously, the stealth bomber was developed in the late 70's, and now you don't think we have comparably advanced technologies especially dealing with intelligence and surveilance matters?

heh... that was one dangerous asprin factory... we really showed it! :thumbsup:

How about this then:

What made Hussein different from any number of other insane dictators around the world is the fact that he sat on the largest untapped reserves of oil in the world. The entire world relies on Middle East oil to run their societies productively, and with his oil he, 1) took advantage of the UN with the oil for food deal, enriching himself, while his people became of the poorest living standards in the world, and his country's infrastucture was neglected and in ruin, 2) used the oil to obtain and enhance his WMD stockpile and his conventional weaponry which he used to attack Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. 3) funded terrorist suicide bombers in Palestine. One could go on a long time.

I say it is a Bad Thing when so much oil, which so much of the world relies on, is controlled by an insane, aggressive dictator. I would pick a corrupt but civilized government over a corrupt, inept, hostile and backward dictator every time. Even though I don't think it was the only reason Iraq was invaded, if in fact it WAS the only reason, I'd be fine with it. A vital, finite resource was being wasted and abused. Add to it his sympathies and funding of terrorism, and the occurence of 9/11 and the potential danger he posed in this new light, its really a no-brainer.

It's a lose - lose situation that we didn't need to embark on, but we did and now what?

Just looking at the sides without any bias (or at least trying to):

If we withdraw now 3 things are apparent:

1) we show weakness (in some people's opinions and perhaps we do)

2) we allow the Iraqis to continue a civil war and have turned our backs on (yet again) those who believed we were there to help and wanted a better country.

3) Our allies will wonder why we didn't finish the war.
However if we stay 3 things are apparent:

1) We keep sending men and women over and the fighting gets worse

2) We show no diplomacy, take the oil and have even our best allies starting to doubt there will be a good ending to this.

3) More of our men and women will die in a foreign land fighting in a war that shouldn't have happened.

No matter how you look at it, I have a feeling for the next decade at least we are in serious trouble.

Im of the opinion that its not a lose-lose situation. I prefer to look at as potential for progress in the Middle East, on many levels. 100 years from now, I think history will look at this and consider it an attempt to advance an area of the world in dire need of help. Not saying it will be 100% successful, but a bold attempt, an experiment to be learned from.

I thought I already answered this question.

The fact that Hussein was sympathetic to people similar to the people who carried out 9/11 I believe was the subsequent mindset that led to the invasion.
"The friend of my enemy is my enemy as well."

If something like 9/11 was possible, then what could Hussein be capable of doing/funding/planning/ with the terrorist-types he sympathized with and funded?? This subsequently brought out the theory of 'pre-emptive warfare', or striking your enemy before he strikes you. A sound military principle.

Power you do make good arguments. And in reply to your previous post: perhaps 100 years from now it will be looked upon as you say an experiment to bring a region into todays world. I truly hope so.

you really should read through the posts by folk who are still struggling to find a justification of bush's actions with reference to iraq--just read through them--if you want to see a curious outline of how political propositions and psychological structures interact, an interaction that only really surfaces at point of dissonance or crisis.

so far, i have seen amazing willingness to distort reality through false equilvalences (clinton's acts versus those of gwb); desperate attempts to salvage an explanation that was obviously floated ex post facto, was never relevant to the decision to go to war (hussein was a bad man), the construction of fantasy scenarios (wmds are buried in the sand)-----anything and everything but a direct confrontation with the fact of the matter.

there are no wmds.
the un inpsections team made this argument at the moment when the bush people were looking to go to war--they were hellbent on war, so allowing the un teams to confirm the nonexistence of the wmds--and thereby imploding the whole argument the bush people were trying to advance--was not an option politically, according to the terms specific to their worldview.

bush had no argument for war.
not really.
it was based on premises that were false, wrong, erroneous.

you might say: well, he believed it, as you might have....

but the fact is that the guy is president of the united states and is not in a position like you sitting on your couch watching tv--you cannot send 150,000 american troops into harm's way on account of your suspicions or beliefs---and you work from a very differently filtered information pool, so it is a damn good thing that you cannot do it.

you have to assume that bush was privy to a full range of information.

therefore george w bush is not in a position like that you are in, and must be held to other standards.

if part of his administration lied to him to justify carrying out a project that ran counter to the political interests of the country, then you have to hold bush accountable for that.

and there is no way, no way at all, that launching a war on false pretenses was in the interests of the united states.

drawing the conclusions about the iraq war from this information should be a no-brainer.
why is it so diffucult for bush supporters to face this?

what kind of democratic politics is the conservative worldview if it is not amenable to the slightest degree of self-criticism?

what good is it to support this position if it places you in a situation in which you are psychologically unable to draw obvious inferences?

if you assume this inability is a function of the political worldview itself, then the obvious question is how does this worldview enable anyone who subscribes to it competent to run the country? if the avoidance of dissonance is the hallmakr of this kind of belief, how is rational decision making possible?

I do hold bush accountable. Im glad he did what he did!
I would argue that trying to implement positive change in an area of the world that so desperately needs it is in line with the political interests of the US and its people. Lets not have anymore 9/11's or worse, shall we? The rest of the world should stand up, show some resolve, and help out with the hard work of setting a good example in dealing with rogue dictators and giving the people of Iraq a hopeful future, because sooner or later this is going to effect every single country that abstained from the endeavor. Its already happened in Russia, and its starting in France as well. Indeed, and based on that information, he launched a 'pre-emptive strike'.
It all makes perfect sense don't it? :D

this is the height of cultural myopia--Russia and France, along with a huge proportion of the industrialized nations, have been dealing with domestic terrorism for decades.

Exactly. For decades. And its only getting worse.
How much longer do they have to go on dealing with it? Now maybe they'll decide to rise up, take a stand and put a stop to it.

Are you kidding? Its been years since they "rose up" to take a stand and apparently they're trying something else because that didn't work.

If anything, they're laughing at us because we think its something new and are taking our stand right now. They've had the same stuff for nations with histories far longer than ours, its like a joke to them now.

You mean like Israel has put a stop to it?

Israel has been aggressively fighting terrorism for YEARS. How successful have they been? And you want the U.S. to use the same tactics.

I don't remember seeing any evidence that Saddam funded terrorists. I remember the CIA being desperate to try and prove it but the rest of the world not buying it. In fact, didn't Bin Laden supposedly approach Saddam to set up training camps in Iraq only for Saddam to ignore him?

Pre-emptive strikes may be a sound military principle in theory, but normally they are arranged when there is credible information that an attack is imminent, not when the supposed enemy is lounging by the pool, smoking an Havana and listening to Jazz FM. Otherwise what's to stop the US just bombing the crap out of the rest of the world "just in case"?

So far we've heard all the following "reasons" as to why the invasion of Iraq was necessary:

1. They had WMDs (no they didn't)
2. They violated UN resolutions (some of the US's allies have violated more, with the help and approval of the US)
3. They were run by an evil dictator (there are dictators just as evil as Saddam currently allowed to do whatever they want without even being so much as told off by the US)
4. They were going to attack the US (with what?)

The mere fact that we're being presented with more than the one originally used to justify the invasion shows to me that there are some people who were just desperate to have a war in the first place, regardless of reason or consequence. At best the "justifications" are hypocritical, at worst they are just lies.

Some research on your part will show that Hussein paid money to the Palestinian familes of successful (ie., dead) suicide bombers as a form of twisted (no pun intended) compensation. Extremely successful. Understand that the IDF stops dozens of suicide attempts every week in protecting their citizens. They're in a fight for their lives. If they gave up for one day, the barbarian hordes would invade and suicide bomb them all to death. Yes, no more religious fanatics flying jets laden with jet fuel into crowded skyscrapers, please. They had their turn, now its our turn for a little while. The type of terrorism being referenced here is low-grade pinpricks compared to 9/11, and I would add the outrageous school massacre in Russia to the list now. Another example of how terrorism can alter the course of a country. This war against fundamentalist lunatics is no joke.

But he didn't fund the bombers. The US, on the other hand, pays out hefty sums of cash to Israel every year so that they can continue their oppression of the Palestinians. If Saddam funds terrorism, then so does the US.

I disagree. And this is splitting hairs even further, but...thats what we do here. Keep it real.

How would you characterize specific monetary compensation of the families of dead suicide terrorists? I wouldn't characterize it as 'oppression' at all. More on the order of Protection. The people practicing the real Oppression are Arafat & Co., as in oppressing and keeping their own people living in open sewers because they refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate country and therefore a partner in peace.

Saddam showed his support for destructive, nihilistic, hate-fueled terrorism, while the US shows its support for a free, democratic, productive Democracy.

So the obliteration of entire Palestinian refugee camps was done for 'Protection' was it? Anyway, this thread is not to discuss the Israel/Palestine conflict, so I won't go into it any further here, although I am sorely tempted.

I don't regard paying the family members of dead suicide bombers as funding terrorism as it has nothing to do with the terrorist act. Being sympathetic to a plight and funding a terrorist act are two different things.

But even if it can be interpreted as funding terrorism, what was the threat posed to the US by Palestinians? Why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia, who have given more money to the Palestinians than Saddam? Or Egypt or Jordan or Syria? The hypocrisy behind this invasion just seems to grow by the minute.

some people view it as funding terrorism because there may have been suicide bombers who wouldn't have done it if it hadn't been that they knew their family would essentially get a winning lotto pick from it. kind of like getting paid to do it if you will.

I think people who blow themselves up do it for something other than cash, especially considering Sharon's retaliation against the families of suicide bombers.

Whatever their motivation, paying the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism. Do you disagree with that? If so then what would you call the payments? It certainly isn't discouraging it.

Paying the families may not be discouraging terrorism, but it certainly isn't encouraging it either. I don't think that offering money to the families of successful suicide bombers inspires someone to become a suicide bomber.

I can certainly see that the payments can be seen to be in support of the bombers, but I still don't consider it to be funding terrorism. But still, the question remains as to why the US would consider Palestinian suicide bombers to be a threat to their security.

What would I call the payments? Compensation to a people that have been backed so far into a corner that they can see no alternative other than killing themselves in the most public manner possible. That does not mean that I agree with it - I most certainly do not and think that the Palestinians are irrevocably harming their cause by continuing like this, but I can understand where they are coming from. They are being viciously butt-fucked by people who you'd expect would know better than most the injustice of ethnic oppression, and the rest of the world doesn't even care. The UN and the US cares more about Syrian troops being in Lebanon than they do about the plight of the Palestinians.

Your sympathies for the plight of those using terrorism as a tool aside, terrorism being seen as a legitimate weapon in the arsenal for political change is a threat no matter where it's occurring.

A threat to who? To the US? How are Palestinian suicide bombers a threat to the US? How can Saddam's payments to their families be a justification for invading Iraq?

I do not have sympathy for terrorists. I have sympathy for Palestinians.

The distinction is meaningless if you "can understand where they are coming from" in their use of terrorism.

Terrorism is a threat to all countries since its successful implementation will encourage its use in other areas. Its failure to sway the political process and achieve the end results of the terrorists discourages its spread.

I do as well. Unfortunatley, you and I combined have more sympathy for these ordinary folks than does their own corrupt leadership, whose only concern is remaining in power as long as possible.

This line of discussion btw is all Opie's fault! ;)

Understanding why the Palestinians are pissed off is a far cry from condoning suicide bombings. You seem far too eager to employ the "with us or against us" argument in my opinion.

Deliberate targeting and murder of civilians is wrong. If believing that falls under your definition of "with us or against us" then I guess so. Do you not see terrorist attacks as a potential danger to all organized governments? If not then we are not likely to have any worthwhile conversation and we can end it now.

I see terrorist bombings as being a threat to all people, never mind organised governments. I still don't see Palestinian bombings in Israel as being a threat to the US and question how anyone can use that as the justification for the invasion of Iraq. If that really is the case, then why didn't the US invade Palestine?

Is this question ever going to be answered? Or is it unanswerable?

Ok. you see terrorist bombings as a threat to all people. On that we agree. Now, do you believe that terrorist bombings are on the increase or decline? I'm of the opinion that they're on the increase. And the more they increase without a real cost (beyond the death of a follower or two) to those using the strategy the more likely others will use this tactic. Should this tactic actually succeed (the Spanish elections for example or the removal of certain troops from Iraq) the more it will be seen as a valid method to achieve goals.

big deal
 

lots of individuals, governments, and organizations around the world possess all kinds of weapons that we do know and do not know about - so what? just because i have an AK and have shot other people with it before, doesn't mean i am gonna shoot you... it's all just paranoia and a misguided belief that perfect security can be achieved if we just eliminate all the threats beforehand... good luck!

Clinton lies about a piece of ass and gets impeached. Bush lies about a multibillion dollar war which now costs over 1000 American lives and yet he's (supposivedly) leading in the polls to be reelected.

That's fucked up.

most of the "terrorist bombings" that have taken place on USA dirt were commited by born and bred white christian american fanatics. abortion clinics, unabomber, oklahoma, atlanta olympics... If Saddam had these WMD´s and the US had absolute proof it was the signed receipts from when we sold em. actually we fucking gave em to him. Damn, Osama learned all his dirty tricks from the CIA and recieved millions of bucks from America in his struggle against the evil commie forces. bad boy Noriega. trained and sponsored. Mobuku. Amin. Pinochet. Sharon.....
America installs em and when they don´t lay down, roll over and beg, America takes em out. They all knew they weren´t no weapons, but hell, worked didn´t it?
I think we all know where all the fuckin weapons are. It sure ain´t iraq.

What that should tell you is that most Americans (if polls are to be believed)support rooting and going after religious fanatics who have an agenda of destruction against the US. As a reminder, there hasn't been 1 single terrorist attack on the US since they decided to take the fight to those religious freaks and the ones who sympathize with them and provide them with a rock to hide under.

That was the dumbest post I've ever read. I don't think you touched on anything remotely intelligent there. Stop believing every two bit bullshit conspiracy theory that Michael Moore spouts and do your own goddamn research.

That's a bit shortsighted though, isn't it? The time between the first WTC bombing and Sept 11 was closer to ten years than 3 years. And those were very much certainly the ones on our soil.

You'd have to wait a while before proclaiming any sense of victory versus an opponent unpredictable and patient.

Are you certain that none of the U.S. dead in Iraq are due to terrorism instead of insurgents? What about the beheadings?

Also, remember - there was not one single foreign-instigated terrorist attack on U.S. soil between 1993 and 2001.

In fact, Al Qaeda has become FAR more active since 9/11 and since the Iraq war:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

Zeld: Good points. They do have from now to eternity to hit again, but I would say that at the moment, the fundaMentalists have their hands too full doing the Devil's work in Iraq to even think of hitting the US again. I think US defense & intelligence services are going to go up a notch because of 9/11. The people who deal with this stuff are going to be much more alert to any red flags that pop up, as they did before 9/11.

O.P.P: The US can't protect the whole world at the same time, as much as they would want it to. :thumbsup:

No attacks on America, though. From what I read, there is no shortage of threats, either.

We must live on different worlds. You on the one where the rest of world wants the U.S. to protect it and I on the one where the rest of the world doesn't support the U.S. concept of protection (preemption).

Is not beheading an American a terrorist act on America?

If you're going to state that "there hasn't been 1 single terrorist attack on the US since they decided to take the fight to those religious freaks" as to imply that we are safer since the U.S. invaded Iraq, you might want to consider the facts which state that there has been an attack (2 now, with today's news of another beheading) on America. Further, you're implying that the U.S. is safer because 1000+ Americans have died "taking the fight to them" in Iraq in the 3 years since 9/11 vs. the less than 1000+ Americans that died fighting terrorism between 1993 and 2001. I don't see how that equates - unless soldiers are expendable even while they have failed to produce any noticable gains against the terrorists.

OK, I looked. All of your sources are Americans, ignoring the rest of the world which, with the exception of Blair, did not believe the WMD's are there.

Most of your sources are old - many 6 years old. I don't care if Saddam had weapons 6 years ago. I care whether or not he had them when we invaded, because that is what our president told us, and that is what he used to justify the invasion.


Frankly the WMD argument was poor on three fronts. First off, there was and still is no evidence that he had them at the time of the invasion.

Second, there was no compelling argument that it mattered if he did have them - his best missile flew less than 200 miles. Was he going to row them over to the US and launch them from a boat in the Chesapeake?

Third, why Saddam? North Korea has a dictator that is considered the world over to be much worse than Saddam, and he has nukes. Why are we worried about some guy with (supposedly) a few rusty chemical weapons falling apart in the desert when we have North Korea which has nuclear warheads, and which shortly before we invaded successfully tested the rocket on which they would deliver the warheads.

These are questions to which the American people should have demanded answers BEFORE the war, much less during it.

Obviously there have been attacks in Iraq.
I'm unaware of any attacks on the continental US. Maybe you know something I don't.
The defenses have been hardened, and I don't foresee a successful fundaMentalist terrorist attack here for a long, long, LONG time. Especially since the nest has been so rattled and the sentries are on full-alert.

Classy, sophisticated people, those head-sawing freaks, eh?

There are well documented holes in the methods used by Homeland Security. And though you may feel safer from an attack, and although there is evidence that in some instances you are safer from an attack, there is also evidence that you are still highly suseptible to attack.

I'm not going to argue with you about how you feel. I, for one, have never felt unsafe from attack - so I can't say that claiming our actions over the past 3 years has made us more safe means anything to me.

But to claim that 3 years of no attacks in the U.S. as an explanation for the war in Iraq is simply not a large enough sample. 1993 to 2001 - no attacks and no war.

Well, Im sorry that the terrorists frighten you. They are pretty freaky, Ill admit.

Acknowledged Holes in Homeland Security, eh? They've been tested in an attack, have they? Maybe I do live on another planet.... :crazy:

As for me, I feel safe. I have no problems sleeping at night. As a matter of fact, I feel safer than ever. Kind of like flying in an airplane now on September 11. Did you know that flights this past 9/11 were booked solid because people thought that the odds of another 9/11 were so remote they went ahead with their plans?

You'd argue with a rainy day, I'd imagine.

Where did I say terrorists frighten me? I said exactly the opposite.

I'd argue with someone attempting to claim we are safer simply because they feel safer even though they offer no evidence that demonstrates it to be true.

There are rather significant holes in Homeland Security. You may have heard about the complete breakdown in the intelligence community and the lack of funding for rather suseptible areas of potential attack. Do a Google search and research things a bit before you try to pass off your feelings as evidence for the validity of a war.

Ahh. I get it now. You're one of those people who won't do anything about a potential danger until it bites you in the butt. I suppose you won't have your squishy brakes looked at until they fail entirely and you hit a tree?

The idea to provide security is to identify potential problems and solve them BEFORE someone gets killed because of them.

Your method is how 9/11 happened. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you allow knives on a plane, someone could use a knife to hijack it. So why wasn't that hole plugged BEFORE 9/11 happened?

I don't think anyone here is saying they're digging a hole and hiding in it until Homeland Security gets a rectal-cranial extraction. We're still living our lives - we just acknowledge that there is a certain danger in doing so, and that maybe it would be really neat if our government actually took steps to protect us rather than running around trying bullshit ineffective methods.

If it came in and told me it was sunny, hell yes I would! ;)

OP, I misread what you said about being how you felt about terrorism. My fault. Obviously there were failures of intelligence beforehand.One can only hope that the professionals will learn from past mistakes and fix what was broke. I still believe that going on the offensive in the case, at least temporarily, is the best defense. Just my opinion.

Shakran, I don't understand the first part of your post. Obviously there was a failure pre-911; defenses have been bolstered post-9/11. The 9/11 Commission concluded - and I completely agree with this characterization - that there was a "lack of imagination" in identifying - and thus preventing - 9/11. Who on earth could have imagined that suicidal maniacs would fly jets into skyscrapers?? It was a paradigm shift in what was thought possible.

Well to use the car analogy again, that's like saying "My brakes failed, so I fixed the horn. I think that solved the problem."

Sure they bolstered security. Unfortunately it isn't working. People are still getting weapons on planes. They're certainly getting weapons on busses.

I just flew out of my airport in a cessna. Didn't have to go through security. Who's to say I didn't load the plane with C4 and am about to fly it into another building? Who's to say I didn't load a fogger with some bio / chem spray and am about to fly over a city?

Sure, I didn't, but my point is that we are not secure. You can't take a gas tank that has 20 holes in it, put a piece of gum in one of the holes, and expect it not to leak.


How about Tom Clancy? He ended Debt of Honor with a suicidal maniac flying a jet into the Capitol.

How about the guy that designed the world trade center? It was built to withstand the impact of a 707.

Besides, we didn't have to imagine that scenario. We only had to imagine the scenario of maniacs hijacking an airplane. It's not like THAT never happened before, yet people were still bringing 3" knives on airplanes and it was totally legal. Are we saying that hijacking an airplane is OK as long as you don't fly it into a building? I bet the pax on the hijacked plane would take issue with that.

shakran, something tells me that unless they put you personally in charge of national security, you're not going to be satisfied with any explanation. But try to be reasonable: of course anything is possible, at any time. Given the right amount of airflow at the right angles and velocities, it is possible for a cow to fly. Lets just say that I'm satisfied with the 9/11 Commission's findings on the matter. I don't blame the US government or intelligence community for 9/11. They had a lot more information to work with than you or I. I'm sure that such scenarios will from now on be considered when it comes to national security. Maybe its time to get back OT.

That's my point. This was an obvious scenario. Dozens of hijackings had happened before 9/11. Why the hell weren't we trying to stop them?

and me being in charge of it has nothing to do with the issue. That's just silly.

So what does this have to do with invading Iraq?

Like before 9/11 when John Ashcroft said that he was sick and tired of hearing all these reports of supposed terrorist threats to America and didn't want to hear another word about it?

America may be safe right now (i.e. at this very moment), but Americans outside of America are far from safe. In fact, any white face outside of America is a target, in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia in particular. Never mind the increased number of lunatics who are desperately trying to get into America. I don't consider this scenario any safer for America or Americans.

Iraq supposedly had biological and chemical weapons. North Korea, on the other hand has nukes, which are the only true weapons of mass destruction. You can't shower off the effects of a 50 kiloton blast or save someone who's body mass was turned into plasma by sticking a needle in their arm. Nor did Hussien have 10,000 artillery peices sitting parked on the border of anyone waiting to turn them into a parking lot. Furthermore, North Korea has over a million active duty troops in their country right now. Saddam had something like 387,000 active troops. It would take between 600,000 and 700,000 troops to oust Kim assuming that his army is no better than Hussein's. Even if we did have that many troops to spare, we don't have a country to stage an invasion from. South Korea isn't letting us, China obviously won't let us, and Russa won't either. Not to mention that Kim could potentially kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of South Korean and Japanese civilians. After reviewing all of that, it becomes completely obvious why we have not done anything to Kim. As for the quotes I gave you, I was simply stating that even the Democrats believed in Saddam having WMD's, not that they were solid proof that he had them.