Author Topic: The Risk of Doing Nothing (Read 2170 times)

Sandman · « **on:** May 18, 2003, 11:15:58 AM »

When President Bush addressed the American people, and the world, two days before initiating a U.S.-led attack against Iraq, he said: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater." The implication was that military action would make the United States safer. Now that the United States has won the war, deposed Saddam, and embarked on democracy-building in Iraq, it is worth re-examining the president's assertion...

http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/05-18-03.html

AKIron · « **Reply #1 on:** May 18, 2003, 11:26:27 AM »

I think you're passing judgement a bit early here. There's still plenty of time to wait a while and yet make those accusations in time for the next election.

Pongo · « **Reply #2 on:** May 18, 2003, 12:13:24 PM »

Yup. this cat is not skinned yet. There are still very big advantages that could be brought to the average person in Iraq that would justify the invasion. certainly when ballanced against very low casualties on each side.
But one has to wonder to what extent history will differenceate the fabrication of cause for the invasion of Iraq with the fabrication of cause for the invasion of poland in 1939. Both were cases of the world trying to placate an overtly aggressive nation, Both were laughable excuses. Both were increadably successfull militarily for the aggressor. Both led to the aggressor thinking the world would let them do anything they wanted and thier military was unstoppable. Wonder if the simularities will continue?

Mathman · « **Reply #3 on:** May 18, 2003, 12:17:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Yup. this cat is not skinned yet. There are still very big advantages that could be brought to the average person in Iraq that would justify the invasion. certainly when ballanced against very low casualties on each side.
But one has to wonder to what extent history will differenceate the fabrication of cause for the invasion of Iraq with the fabrication of cause for the invasion of poland in 1939. Both were cases of the world trying to placate an overtly aggressive nation, Both were laughable excuses. Both were increadably successfull militarily for the aggressor. Both led to the aggressor thinking the world would let them do anything they wanted and thier military was unstoppable. Wonder if the simularities will continue?

Yes, we are going to invade Canada next month. It is called Operation Leaf Blower.

NUKE · « **Reply #4 on:** May 18, 2003, 12:17:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Yup. this cat is not skinned yet. There are still very big advantages that could be brought to the average person in Iraq that would justify the invasion. certainly when ballanced against very low casualties on each side.
But one has to wonder to what extent history will differenceate the fabrication of cause for the invasion of Iraq with the fabrication of cause for the invasion of poland in 1939. Both were cases of the world trying to placate an overtly aggressive nation, Both were laughable excuses. Both were increadably successfull militarily for the aggressor. Both led to the aggressor thinking the world would let them do anything they wanted and thier military was unstoppable. Wonder if the simularities will continue?

Yes, America is pretty much the same as Nazi Germany, I see your point now.

Mini D · « **Reply #5 on:** May 18, 2003, 12:41:28 PM »

The only rewarding part about doing nothing is the ability to sit back and criticize every aspect of those that did something.

We did nothing for 9 years leading up to this point and look where that got us.

MiniD

vorticon · « **Reply #6 on:** May 18, 2003, 12:44:40 PM »

only problem is last time you invaded canada we royally kicked your ass...dont make us do it again...

OIO · « **Reply #7 on:** May 18, 2003, 01:47:40 PM »

LOL! Good point! Dont Mess with Canada!

"Of course, the real threat, according to the administration, was not Iraq's military, but its weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network."

What a fruit loop that author. He says that because no weapons have been found yet, then it must mean they didnt have them or the invasion was done on shaky foundations.

For someone claiming to be "director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.", he sure is a clueless imbecile.

Iraq HAD chemical and biological weapons, Hussein used them against the kurds on countless ocassions. Its not the weapons that pose a threat its the know-how thats the real danger. And the only way to remove that know how is to get in there and take out the scientists or otherwise neutralize them. Remember Penemunde!

Sandman · « **Reply #8 on:** May 18, 2003, 02:17:54 PM »

So you're saying that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of chemical weapon use against the Kurds in 1991?

Was that the justification?

Quote

Bush accused Iraq of having enough material "to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people ... more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure ... as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

If Iraq had any WMD, they would have used it.

SOB · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2003, 02:23:11 PM »

LOL, you really have lost it Pongo. Seek help.

SOB

OZkansas · « **Reply #10 on:** May 18, 2003, 02:24:19 PM »

I find it a bit ironic that those who would let Hans Blix and the UN search Iraq for years on end for WMD demand that WMD be shown by the U.S. now or they will label the war unjust!

OZkansas · « **Reply #11 on:** May 18, 2003, 02:27:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

If Iraq had any WMD, they would have used it.

What leads you to believe that Saddam would use WMD in this war?

Sandman · « **Reply #12 on:** May 18, 2003, 02:31:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by OZkansas
What leads you to believe that Saddam would use WMD in this war?

If he did have it, I guess he could have been saving it for the next war.

yeah... that's it...

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** May 18, 2003, 02:34:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by OZkansas
I find it a bit ironic that those who would let Hans Blix and the UN search Iraq for years on end for WMD demand that WMD be shown by the U.S. now or they will label the war unjust!

Well... Bush wasn't willing to wait for Blix to find it. With his intelligence sources, he expected Iraq to simply admit to it. There was no search necessary.

From here, it looks as if the intel was wrong and Blix was right. There are no WMD.

Hortlund · « **Reply #14 on:** May 18, 2003, 03:27:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If he did have it, I guess he could have been saving it for the next war.

yeah... that's it...

Did Hitler use his nerve gas at the end of ww2?

If your answer is "no" then why not? Was he saving it for the next war?

Drop the attitude, get an education, and post smarter stuff Sandman.