Is it proof that Saddam is evil and aggressive and a thread, or is it proof that the invasion is causing problems, not solving them?
If he did not have them he could not give them to anybody. He would have lied about not having them. if he lied about that he would do anything. Want to give a liar the benefit of the doubt? I guess so.
No, it means a whole lot of military Iraqs are going to die really fast, and the rest will surrender really fast.
Would Bush be proven right? Yes. Would Bush be proven wrong? Yes. He'd be right that Saddam had them all along and didn't comply with 1441 by divulging and destroying them. He'd be wrong in that he would have vastly underrepresented the threat, both domestically and abroad, that a pre-emptive strike would cause Americans. If Saddam used them today, Bush would look like a genius. If Saddam uses them the day after the US invades, Bush looks like an idiot.
Re: Re: If Saddam uses chemical weapons, does that mean Bush was right, or that he was wrong? Since Blix asked for more time, I think Bush is wrong to invade. What exactly was the big hurry, again? Did Bush have St. Patrick's Day in fidlerre's pool?
Re: Re: Re: If Saddam uses chemical weapons, does that mean Bush was right, or that he was wrong? No, see it is kind of hot over there. So our soldiers would not be able to wear their gas masks and all and fight at the same time. That is why people were and are advocating an early March date for a while.
> Err.......is there a missing punchline there with that last bit? Dead Americans trump an "I told you so".
which is why it's so easy to make the anti-war argument. If Saddam really has nothing, the I-told-you-so's will run rampant. But if (when) it's finally proven that Saddam has everything he's accused of having, who will really care who's right and who's wrong when Americans have died?
I think it's just your lack of brain synapses. The pro-war people say that Saddam has WMD and wants to use them on us. Hence, if he used them on us today before anybody attacked him, Bush would be thumbing his nose at the world, saying "I told you so". The anti-war people say that Saddam probably has WMD, but that he is not looking to use them on us as much as he's paranoid and wants to stay in power. Therefore, if we attack him, he's going to become like a provoked rabid dog and use those WMD in retaliation. Then lots of people die, and the anti-Bush people get to say "I told you so" as they're choking on their mustard gas.
Most of the anti-war arguments I've heard indicate that they believe Saddam doesn't have the WMD's, citing lack of proof.
Links, please. You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody with an ounce of credibility who actually trusts Saddam. The issue is the relevance of Saddam in the world today even if he has bad weapons.
that may be true regarding nukes, but almost no one believes that Saddam does not have chemical or biological weapons.
How!?! If Saddam uses chemical weapons, it proves hes been lying for 12 years. It would single handidly justify the war, plus some, seeing as how Saddam would only further his war criminal reputation. There is no circumstance that would allow Bush to look bad if Saddam used chem weapons.
Re: Re: If Saddam uses chemical weapons, does that mean Bush was right, or that he was wrong? If you acknowledge the exsistence of illicit bio/chem weapons programs, then why are you all about inspections? The 1991 cease fire underlined the need for Saddam to get rid of those proscribed programs. If everyone knows he has them, then how can you claim a war would be unjustified?
Stop trying to introduce logic into the equation. There is no circumstance where the anti-war movement will admit they were wrong, they'll just spin that it's Bush's fault that Saddam used chemical weapons against our troops. This, of course, ignores the fact that Saddam was supposed to DISARM under numerous resolutions and the conditions HE agreed to at the close of the Gulf War. They will actually believe that Saddam would use chemical weapons against our soldiers but never think to use them against US civilians given the opportunity. This is why the American people have tossed the far left out of office and will continue to do so in greater numbers in the next 2-3 elections. They are untrustworthy when it comes to national defense and the threat of terrorism. Heck, even Bill Clinton recognized this in 1998 when he stated flatly that Hussein will use WMDs and must be disarmed. He, of course, was a clever politician whereas the foot soldiers in the far left movement are just plain stupid and will naively commit political suicide.
Are the hawks here aware of the CIA assessment which stated that Saddam wouldn't use WMDs unless cornered? I know the doves brought up that report many times. That's how Saddam using them could mean Bush was wrong.
Yes fully aware. So Saddam won't use them unless cornered. No problem there. Bush has said that the mandate of the UN whether it be through 1441 or some other resolution over the past 12 years was for Iraq to disarm. Iraq has said, we have no WMD. If Iraq uses them, Bush wins the debate that Iraq was not complying with the mandate of the Security Council. Even if his use might be justified as rationale or expected by the doves, I think Bush comes out (internationally) looking like he was right regardless of the spin. That being said, Bush will probably not be able to effectively spin it his way. Hopefully Blair, Powell or Cheney can.