Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to so by 'brass tacs', what you really mean is rusty nails

"It IS my assertion that we have clear, un-contradicted evidence of a threat before we take military action."
Tom Brosz — (archived)

And it IS my assertion that this is not possible in the real world to the level you demand. Obviously, the evidence gathered up before the war is considered "insufficient" in your eyes, so you must have something else in mind. You have already blown off my challenge to come up with ANY viable scenario, fictional or real, that would qualify as "clear, un-contradicted evidence," gathered from pre-war Iraq, short of an actual attack in progress.

Large labels on warehouse roofs saying "nuclear warheads: No smoking?" A signed letter from Saddam to bin Laden offering his men Frequent Flyer Miles? Defectors whose noses grow when they lie? I have documented loads of items that show that Saddam intended to possess WMD come hell or high water, and loads of items showing him to be cooperative with a number of terrorist movements. None of these have reached the level of your "bar."

This is an important question that needs answering, from either you or someone else here. If there is a level of evidence required to protect ourselves from an attack before it happens, this needs definition. Iraq is not the only country out there which posed a danger.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (58 posts)