Quote:
Originally posted by Xugumad
I guess admitting a contrasting point's correctness is too much.
|
Not too much, but it's unnecessary. That was my point.. if you're gonna feel "saddened" whenever someone fails to say "Wow Xugamad, you were right!" when you link to some info that supports your argument, you're gonna spend a lot of time feeling sad.
I can link to tons of irrefutable information on other websites too. But, since you fail to see the point I am trying to make, even with all of your quotes from various Senate hearings: yes, we sold precursors to biological weapons to Iraq. We never sold them the actual weapons, even though we likely knew that they could and probably were using these precursors to make weapons.
<B>SO WHAT HAVE YOU PROVEN? WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE?</B> Please, please, answer this question. For the love of God, no more quotes or links about how we sold biological agents and nasty chemicals to Iraq. YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THAT. YOU ARE RIGHT. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT THOSE EVENTS TOOK PLACE.
OK, so 10 or 20 years ago, we sold some stuff and provided some support to a country we considered our ally. Oh, shit! It turns out they're not our ally after all! Whoops, our bad! So, what do we do now? Say "well, we're the ones who gave it to 'em, so we can't do anything about it now"? I ask for the third time, what relevance does any of this have to whether we should attack Iraq or force regime change today, in 2002?
Quote:
|
Iraq has committed no acts against the US; there is no evidence that they are planning any acts against Americans, neither are they currently causing any major havoc in the Middle East. They were and are still being severely punished for their misgivings.
|
We are well past the era where we can afford to act reactively to attacks against us. Regimes run by homicidal maniacs who hate the U.S. having WMD is something we can't let happen. Sure, Saddam may be interested only in regional domination, but what happens when he dies 15 years from now? Who takes over.. his charming son Uday? Maybe someone else who's interested in more than regional power?
And what if some al-Qaeda insider offers him a few million for <I>just one</I> long-range missile capable of dispersing VX nerve gas over an entire city?
All this bullshit about "if the U.S. proactively attacks other countries, that's the first step to total world anarchy" is ridiculous. Those sort of gentleman's agreements where countries are only supposed to attack if they're attacked first aren't gonna cut it anymore, because we're no longer dealing with countries that respect those sorts of agreements.