Generally, I avoid personal attacks when possible. So let's get back to your statements again:

Tech1 wrote:
"PS What part of the threat of WMD in the hands of Saddam (who has long awaited revenge for the previous gulf war) don't you comprehend? If he did not want revenge - why try to assassinate former President Bush? Why the secret arsenal of WMD?"



Becuase he has had them and not used them, even when we were stomping him into tomato paste in 1991.



That is supposition not logic. Saddam has been trying to obtain nuclear weapons and once he is known to have those, all bets are off. Saddam would not hesitate to let his own people die in a blast if he could take out 250,000 troops. We never entered Baghdad. We can also suppose that since we the former 1991 resolutions let him go, he assumes the UN will always let him off the hook. Which from all measures, Saddam is justified in believing.

Saddam knows as soon as he uses a WMD against us or a neighbor, he is toast.

He knows Iraq is toast...or DOES HE?
Look at how we bend over backwards to protect innocent Iraqi civilians. Do you really believe he thinks we will nuke Baghdad because of 10,000 deaths in New York from VX or 7,000 deaths in DC from Anthrax? No, I do NOT believe he thinks we will nuke Iraqis back into the stone age for a WMD attack - quite the opposite, he is buoyed by world opinion that indeed his regime is no threat to the world and that war should not be waged against him.

Let's be honest - would YOU support nuking Baghdad if a WMD went off in say Chicago and killing 5,000 people and making another 10,000 seriously ill?

I know I would NOT - and I am a conservative!

There is NO 'clear and present danger'.

Again supposition. Each person who is paid to assess threats and dangers to national security will have varying opinions as to which nation poses the gravest threat. Saddam, due to his character and motive, will round out any top 5 list.

There are dozens of countries that hate us and have WMD... Just spin the globe and put your finger down at or below the equater and chances are you'll find one. Do we then invade all of those countries? Or just ones who pissed us off as of late?

Sure lots of countries hate us - but more depend upon us and very few have billions of dollars to flush away for WMD and a nuclear weapons program. We're not invading NK even though they have threatened us with nuclear war. We have less fears about NK closed society exporting terror. We ARE going to invade Iraq, due to active bellligerence towards the US (12 years of no-fly zone attacks/assassination attempts offered as exhibits A and B) and 12 years of secret WMD building.

Tech1:
Motive + Weapons = Clear and Present Danger

Again, it is more likely that he will use them in a war against us than sit on them indefinately if we do not attack- this justification does not stand up.

Letting someone with Saddam's track record remain in power until he absolutely obtains nuclear weapons is an unnecessary risk to the US. We know what its like living in fear of nuclear bombs raining down upon us. However it was always tempered by the thought of mutual destruction and sane leadership.

Saddam has a god complex. He thinks he's Saladin or Nebuchadnezzar, unable to be defeated, dictator for life. As he gets older and his mortality stares him straight in the mirror each day, life will mean less to him - a final statement of his life such as the permanent destruction of Israel is the sort of thing he would love to be immortalized by.

Tech1:
"Eagerly awaiting some logic remuses that turn red into blue..."

Tech1, thats hogwash too. You might as well say that about mathematics ('cause thats all mathematics is, on the foundation level). You think I am doing something like lying with statistics by pointing out logical fallacy? Thats like saying: "I can't dispute your supporting facts but you are still wrong".



Again, you prove me right- we end up arguing just as much about innuendo than fact, AND you term me pompous just because I:
1) Disagree with you
2) Point out that the emperor is naked (that political arguments devolve into BS here if one party disagrees with the standard line)

Not that I really mind, I have been called a lot worse by alot better ;-)

Davin L.



Arguing about innuendo is not the problem. The Saddam "danger or not" argument requires a totally subjective interpretation of history and each person has to attempt to extrapolate where this history is going to take us under varying courses of action/inaction.

Bush is naked to you (and maybe RobVG ;-) but not to me and others. His constitutional obligations do not require that he listen to each one of us, or the protesters, the UN etc. He has already obtained authorization for military action from Congress so the whole ball is in his court. The protests should've come when congress was debating the matter. However the socialists (the driving and organizing force behind the protests) only realized the fractious potential of the debate after Germany and France started looking out for their cash cow. Thus A.N.S.W.E.R and others were born when they thought they had a chance to divide and conquer.

Regards,

SDAI-Tech1