VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:10:57 03/31/03 Mon
Author: Scott Tilde
Subject: One "Simple" Question, One Complex Answer
In reply to: Rockford 's message, "It seems to boil down to one simple question..." on 16:18:46 03/28/03 Fri

Rockford starts out with the right question, and probably could have generated a good argument, but he quickly falls victim to his apparent Bush/Republican-hating ideology (This administration really believes in fantasy, Ivy-League braintrusts have no practical military experience, trotting out the quotes of retired Schwarzkopf, who doesn't have current data about anything, the war's run by politicians, not military men [as if this is the first time that's happened], the war's illegitimate because it's being "run incompetently" etc. etc...). At some point he transitions into terming the war "unneccessary". Huh?

I'll hit on Rockford's core statements:

"It seems to boil down to one simple question: Do you or do you not believe that Saddam is a threat to us?"

That's what it's all about. A lot of people either apparently don't believe that, or feel that 'peace' is more important than dealing with that reality. We all want peace and security. It's become clear to me that in this case, peace is an end, not a means.


"Almost no one doubts that [Saddam] has chemical,and probably biological weapons."

Even fewer should now that they've found all those chemical suits and gas masks in Iraqi troop positions and "hospitals".


"Could he "hand-off" to terrorists who could use them here at home. Seems unlikely."

Why does it seem unlikely? The Iraqis got this stuff from the decomposing USSR in the 90s. It was 'handed off', or more precisely, sold off. Let's hope our post-9/11 intelligence makes it much more difficult for notorious miscreants/"axis of evil" members to distribute this stuff, but Saudis crashing planes into U.S. buildings seemed 'unlikely' too, apparently, despite the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. It only takes our complacence to let this stuff happen. That's already been proven. So, based on recent history, you still want to proffer a guess that it "seems unlikely", and deal with the possible ramifications of being wrong? Not me.

"Whatever he has, he has presumably had for a long time. Why
hasn't it happened already?"

We have adequate evidence that this guy is an Arab-world megalomaniac who collects chemical and biological weapons as a hobby. But we should wait until something happens? WHY? This has been stated ad nauseum, but I'll repeat it: The gun doesn't smoke until it's already been fired. We've already been there (see that big gaping hole in Manhattan - it's unforgettable - the original 'shock and awe').

"Not even the administration really believes in the handoff theory."

State your source. The administration did itself a grave disservice by trying to create a hard link between Iraq and Al Quaeda where one didn't exist. They didn't need to do that - people who don't want to believe that this is dangerous stuff and this is a dangerous man aren't going to be swayed by mere evidence. It appears most of the American public accepts the argument that there wasn't going to be another solution to this problem other than removing the cancer. You can only negotiate with and contain the cancer for so long.

Now, I'll ask Rockford the same question I asked Jim, who originated this thread:

Why is war at this point a mistake, and what would you do to solve the Saddam Hussein problem instead of going to war?

The problem isn't going away, no matter how much you complain about the war. This is why most don't take so-called 'peace' protestors seriously: they offer no answers.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.