[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
What was the threat? If the Iraqis didn't use any WMD during the war when their lives were at stake then the threat argument is specious because if their ever was any intention to use them they would have used them during the war.

If it was about liberation where are the people clamoring to liberate other people from other dictators?

One of the huge irony of the war is that more people will have been killed by the war than would have been killed by any WMD that will likely be found.

Another huge irony is that fewer people were killed in the war then have been killed by the regime.

The fact that WMD haven't been used yet in the conflict doesn't by itself prove the absence of the weapons. There are many possible explanations. All of which you will scoff at so I won't bother wasting electrons posting them.

He had them in the past and had shown a willingness to use them. He had not totally documented their destruction. We had evidence that he still had them and was trying to develop them further. And he had connections with terrorist organazations that would have happily used them on our shores. That's a threat.

I can understand why you might look at the evidence and say it was wrong. I can understand that you might believe out interpretation of the data was incorrect. I concede that you sincerely believe there was no legitimate threat. What I don't understand is why you insist that not only was there no threat, but that we must know there was no threat and therefore our reasons for war must be something else other than what we claim they are.

Geoschmo

[ April 10, 2003, 21:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]