View Full Version : The liklihood of WMD's
The Likelihood.
“Any and all bomb threats are regarded as real by all government agencies.”
“The AMBER Plan was created in 1996 as a powerful legacy to 9-year-old Amber Hagerman, a bright little girl who was kidnapped and brutally murdered while riding her bicycle in Arlington, Texas. The tragedy shocked and outraged the entire community. Residents contacted radio stations in the Dallas area and suggested they broadcast special “alerts” over the airwaves so that they could help prevent such incidents in the future.”
“A threat to assassinate the president can be punished to the same extent of the law as an actual attempt”
Why is it that so many complain about the United States not finding stockpiles of WMD’s in Iraq, but at the same time if a bomb threat were called in to their children’s school and an evacuation was not ordered they would be a bit upset? I know I was. My son’s school had a bomb threat about a year ago and the principal was fired due to not evacuating the school. The school had been getting an average of two threats a week and I guess the principal finally got fed up. In the post 9/11 world we live in now I do not care if the school were getting threats everyday, they should have evacuated. If you have a small child that becomes missing at the mall for whatever reason and you cannot find them immediately due you just wait for them to show up, or do you ask for help? Obviously most parents would seek help as soon possible. If the secret service got a direct threat of an assassination attempt would they change any of their daily routines? I think they would.
It is amazing to me how so many people can react to the smallest chance of something bad happening, yet wonder why we went to war with Iraq over WMD’s. Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraqi Survey Group stated that the likelihood of finding stockpiles of illegal weapons was less than 5%. This makes me wonder. If we were alerted that there was a 4% chance of a school being blown up on a certain date would we send our kids to school that day? I wouldn’t. Granted the odds are in your favor, but does anyone really want to play those odds? The threat of WMD’s was there. The games Saddam was playing with the inspectors led me to believe that he was either hiding something or just simply playing games with the world. I have stated before that personally I saw many reasons to remove him for power and WMD’s was not at the top of my list. So many people however are complaining that it was the reason given for going to war so that is why I wanted to comment on it. The likelihood that you will get struck by lightning during an electrical storm is remote, but do most of us when we are outside and hear the crack of thunder run inside or just stand there? If we can react so serious to a bomb threat that may kill a few hundred people, why should we sit and wait when there is a possible chance a many great more could die due to some dictators whims?
starrdarcy
10-08-04, 05:00 PM
Yeah kind or ironic and strange. I agree with you on most of what you say. Bush is going to have a hard explaning if he ends up pulling out of Iraq and the country is ruined. America is making alot of new enemies lately. Perhaps they should be staying in ther eown country fixing up there own problems. Then again, america's power is usefull when civil war, and genocide breaks out in another country...
Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraqi Survey Group stated that the likelihood of finding stockpiles of illegal weapons was less than 5%. This makes me wonder. If we were alerted that there was a 4% chance of a school being blown up on a certain date would we send our kids to school that day? I wouldn’t.
There's a bit of a problem with your argument tho 7th. In the school example the threat is aimed at the school. In the WMD example there's no evidence that the threat was aimed at the US.
(I'd be glad to argue the details of the allegations that Saddam has a track record of targeting the US with covert attacks [namely, the highly tenuous alleged assassination attempt on Bush Snr, and the equally inconclusive Yasin-housing situation relating to the 1993 attack on the WTC)
There's a bit of a problem with your argument tho 7th. In the school example the threat is aimed at the school. In the WMD example there's no evidence that the threat was aimed at the US.
I totally agree with you here, but later in the thread I had mentioned a scenario where the threat could have been to any school. I also say that the threat to many of our allies was real, and Saddam himself could be quoted many times about how he felt about America. I know, I know, if the threats were not to America why did we get involved in the first place? That is for another thread, I think and there are plenty out there which I will probably venture into over the next few weeks as I am finally able to post more regularly now. What I wanted to point out in this thread is that if something effects us directly we react immediately, but if it is around the corner some of us would rather turn a blind eye? Would you help a parent who had lost a child in the mall if they needed it? I mean it is not your child why should you do anything? My argument is a bit simpleminded I know, but sometimes people get so deep into what they believe in they can get a bit of the ol' tunnel vision.
I totally agree with you here, but later in the thread I had mentioned a scenario where the threat could have been to any school.... but sometimes people get so deep into what they believe in they can get a bit of the ol' tunnel vision.
Well, i like to think that my tunnel vision is focussed on what is best for the Iraqis and the local region :) (tho i've got wider issues that i get over-focused on too ;)).
I'd still say the threat wasn't as global as your example suggests, and the repurcussions of the chosen approach are potentially worse than the possible threat, but i guess i'll leave those issues to another thread. :)
Well, i like to think that my tunnel vision is focussed on what is best for the Iraqis and the local region :) (tho i've got wider issues that i get over-focused on too ;)).
I'd still say the threat wasn't as global as your example suggests, and the repurcussions of the chosen approach are potentially worse than the possible threat, but i guess i'll leave those issues to another thread. :)
I hope you did not think I was referring to you when I meantioned tunnel-vision. Actually most everyone on this forum seems to be for the most part open minded. Thanks for your thoughts.
I hope you did not think I was referring to you when I meantioned tunnel-vision. Actually most everyone on this forum seems to be for the most part open minded. Thanks for your thoughts.
Cool man. Yeah, MoFo's definitely a good place to discuss things and get some measured responses (and some limitlessly silly ones too, but that's forums eh? ;)). I didn't think you were slinging dirt tho. I was more sort of agreeing that we're all liable to get caught up on favoured ways of seeing things. I know i am ;).
7thson are you really referring to double standards, e.g. Peolpe who don't beleive in Capital punishment until some they know is murdered, and if someone threatened to kill me, no one would take it seriously, but if it was George Bush well everyone would be on alert and more, hope that makes sense.
How do you workout what threats to take seriously? :( should we react anyway? :(
How do you workout what threats to take seriously? :( should we react anyway? :(That's just it. If the threat is serious enough you have to treat it as if it were real. There was a serious threat from Iraq. The U.S. took it seriously and now because nothing is found people all over are pointing fingers with this I told you so attitude. And if someone threatened to murder you they would have to answer to me.;)
There was a serious threat from Iraq.
What do you feel the threat was? And who were the potential targets?
if someone threatened to murder you they would have to answer to me.;)
:kiss:
Henry The Kid
10-10-04, 03:02 PM
I think most people are upset because Bush lied about WMDs existing.
I would have been upset even if we had found WMDs.
I think most people are upset because Bush lied about WMDs existing.
I would have been upset even if we had found WMDs.
This is an amazing statement if you think about what it means. Was Bush mistaken? Sure. Did his administration screw up? Of course. Did he lie or did he act upon what he thought was the truth? I am not sure, but I tend to think he went with the information he had. That is not actually what I wanted to address here though. I am saying that the threat was there. Saddams actions alone cast a doubt as to whether he had weapons or not.
Golgot asked me what I thought the threat was and what were the targets. I am not sure if you are testing my knowledge or just want to see what I will say. Yo know what the threat of a dictator with WMD's is my friend. As far as the targets go why not ask those who have already been targeted in the past by these weapons. Why not ask a man I had met in Kuwait who had lost his sight and was deformed due to mustard gas used by Saddam's regime. I am not here trying to justify anything other than the right to act if a threat exists. How many of Americas allies are in stricking distance of Iraq if they had decided to use weapons against them? I go back to the bomb threat scenario. If someone threatened to blow up a school and they were caught but it was found that there was no bomb would we just let them go. No of course not, they would be punished, and the punishment for the threat is severe, at least here in America.
Golgot asked me what I thought the threat was and what were the targets. I am not sure if you are testing my knowledge or just want to see what I will say.
Bit of both ;).
I know you've got first hand experience of life on the ground over there, and i'm not doubting your knowledge of that by any means. I wanted to test your claim that the threat was serious though (remember that the UN weapons inspectors were fairly sure he was chemical weapon situation was contained).
What it comes down to is that i think Saddam was unhinged, a constant threat to his own society, and a future threat to others (coz sanctions weren't sustainable for a start). But i think there are greater threats in this world, and one of them is the 'West'/Islamic-extremist divide. That particular world dynamic has got the potential to spill a lot more blood and cause a lot more pain than anything Saddam was gonna get up to over the next while.
That's why i agree with you in theory, but i don't see the way we've acted currently as having reduced the threats to the middle-east or the wider world. I see our actions as having made other 'Saddams' more likely.
i don't see the way we've acted currently as having reduced the threats to the middle-east or the wider world. I see our actions as having made other 'Saddams' more likely.
I feel the same :(
Tea Barking
10-10-04, 10:08 PM
I'm not sure but i think most of europe and america have wmd, but its alright beacuse their the good guys.
And with a stable country like russia having wmd i can sleep soundly.
If i could emigrate to another planet i would.
a stable country like russia having wmd i can sleep soundly..
me too :eek:
Bit of both ;).
I see our actions as having made other 'Saddams' more likely.Bats in the Belfry my friend. If evil is going to rear its ugly head might as well get it over with and cut that head off.
Piddzilla
10-11-04, 06:19 AM
It is amazing to me how so many people can react to the smallest chance of something bad happening, yet wonder why we went to war with Iraq over WMD’s. Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraqi Survey Group stated that the likelihood of finding stockpiles of illegal weapons was less than 5%. This makes me wonder. If we were alerted that there was a 4% chance of a school being blown up on a certain date would we send our kids to school that day? I wouldn’t. Granted the odds are in your favor, but does anyone really want to play those odds? The threat of WMD’s was there.
The liklihood of finding stockpile weapons was less than 5%. That is not the same as the liklihood of an iraqi attack on USA was 5%. If you own a gun - let's say the liklihood of that is less than 5% - does that mean that the liklihood of you shooting me is, say, 4%? Not even close. You are mixing things up, 7thson.
To me, the liklihood of Iraq attacking USA when Saddam was in power was more like 0% considering the control that USA allready had over Iraq. Saddam couldn't fart in the wrong direction without american airforce bombing him.
I think it's basically good for the iraqi people that Saddam is good. But like Golgot I don't think that americans are safer today because of the war in Iraq.
The games Saddam was playing with the inspectors led me to believe that he was either hiding something or just simply playing games with the world. I have stated before that personally I saw many reasons to remove him for power and WMD’s was not at the top of my list. So many people however are complaining that it was the reason given for going to war so that is why I wanted to comment on it. The likelihood that you will get struck by lightning during an electrical storm is remote, but do most of us when we are outside and hear the crack of thunder run inside or just stand there? If we can react so serious to a bomb threat that may kill a few hundred people, why should we sit and wait when there is a possible chance a many great more could die due to some dictators whims?
I don't think you can expect a stalinist dictator to act reasonable or expect him to being led by logic. If I had to choose one of your two alternatives, I would say he was playing games with the world. It was his ego talking and his ego always came before the wellbeing of his people of course.
And you are talking like Saddam was allowed to do whatever he felt like, in terms of military activity, and that is simply not true. It is possible, and probably likely, that sanctions, inspections and other pressures being carried out towards Iraq weren't enough but I am absolutely certain that there must have been a few more things to try before rushing to war.
I think the war in Iraq is building up a greater threat to America than what Saddam ever did.
I'm not sure but i think most of europe and america have wmd, but its alright beacuse their the good guys.
And with a stable country like russia having wmd i can sleep soundly.
If i could emigrate to another planet i would.
I was just going to say something about that.
By using 7thson's logic, Russia would be one of the most threatening countries in the world to USA.
Russia has nuclear weapons
Russia is USA:s old enemy
Communism is back in style
Democracy is in deep decline
The civil war in Chechnya attracts Al Qaeda
Considering the Cold War ended less than 15 years ago the country should be flooded by individuals that used to devote their lives to making the lives of americans unsafe
The liklihood of finding stockpile weapons was less than 5%. That is not the same as the liklihood of an iraqi attack on USA was 5%. If you own a gun - let's say the liklihood of that is less than 5% - does that mean that the liklihood of you shooting me is, say, 4%? Not even close. You are mixing things up, 7thson.
To me, the liklihood of Iraq attacking USA when Saddam was in power was more like 0% considering the control that USA allready had over Iraq. Saddam couldn't fart in the wrong direction without american airforce bombing him.
I do not think you have either read everything I have said or you decided to dismiss it. The likilihood of Saddam using WMD's directly against the US was next to nil I concede that. If I implied that I thought differently then I impied wrong and take it back. He was however a threat to many of our allies and has proven to be so in the past. Your example with the gun actually proves my point if you look at it in the correct light. If I owned a gun and have in the past gone around shooting people and you knew this would you want to live next to me? That and the fact that in the U.S. if you are a convicted felon you are not allowed to carry or own a gun. I wonder why that is? Why should Saddam have been allowed to repeat his actions, and why should we believe we could have made him adhere to the resolutions without force when he was doing nothing but laughing at us.
By using 7thson's logic, Russia would be one of the most threatening countries in the world to USA.
Russia has nuclear weapons
Russia is USA:s old enemy
Communism is back in style
Democracy is in deep decline
The civil war in Chechnya attracts Al Qaeda
Considering the Cold War ended less than 15 years ago the country should be flooded by individuals that used to devote their lives to making the lives of americans unsafe
I meant to comment on this in last post but messed up so sorry for double post...anyway:
Point 2 here "old enemy" hence not our enemy anymore.
Communism is back in style? Comeon now explain this statement to me.
Russia in no way compares to former Iraq, at least to me. That is not to say there is no threat there just as there is in many other countries. Maybe the U.S did not approach the worlds problems in the right order. Maybe the check list of countries we should do something about was out of order. I seriously have no idea if we should have done something about the other countries first or not.
By the way I do not think the U.S. is safer now because Saddam is out of power, but I still defend the decision to have him removed. Go figure. My philosophies are a bit skewed I admit, but in the end only kindness matters, oh wait I meant in the end I hope the world is a better place. It is going to take time though. You can rush war, but it is hard to rush peace.
chicagofrog
10-11-04, 12:00 PM
"Yo know what the threat of a dictator with WMD's is my friend. As far as the targets go why not ask those who have already been targeted in the past by these weapons. Why not ask a man I had met in Kuwait who had lost his sight"
well, apply that to Palestinian children, and Israel is supported by the US, and apply that to people i met in Japan where children are still born NOW suffering the consequences of those A-bombs Yankees dropped there in an ecstatic frenesy of power, and apply that to the 20 countries or so the US thought they had the right to drop bombs on, supporting dictators in South America, ... and i'd say if tyrans and dictatures shouldn't have nuclear weapons and such, take them away from the US! by force if necessary!
see, i'm a threat for the American so-called "democracy" and world domination! so, drop a bomb on me and kill my children, be a good american soldier!
and was deformed due to mustard gas used by Saddam's regime. I am not here trying to justify anything other than the right to act if a threat exists. How many of Americas allies are in stricking distance of Iraq if they had decided to use weapons against them? I go back to the bomb threat scenario. If someone threatened to blow up a school and they were caught but it was found that there was no bomb would we just let them go. No of course not, they would be punished, and the punishment for the threat is severe, at least here in America.
"Yo know what the threat of a dictator with WMD's is my friend. As far as the targets go why not ask those who have already been targeted in the past by these weapons. Why not ask a man I had met in Kuwait who had lost his sight"
well, apply that to Palestinian children, and Israel is supported by the US, and apply that to people i met in Japan where children are still born NOW suffering the consequences of those A-bombs Yankees dropped there in an ecstatic frenesy of power, and apply that to the 20 countries or so the US thought they had the right to drop bombs on, supporting dictators in South America, ... and i'd say if tyrans and dictatures shouldn't have nuclear weapons and such, take them away from the US! by force if necessary!
see, i'm a threat for the American so-called "democracy" and world domination! so, drop a bomb on me and kill my children, be a good american soldier!
and was deformed due to mustard gas used by Saddam's regime. I am not here trying to justify anything other than the right to act if a threat exists. How many of Americas allies are in stricking distance of Iraq if they had decided to use weapons against them? I go back to the bomb threat scenario. If someone threatened to blow up a school and they were caught but it was found that there was no bomb would we just let them go. No of course not, they would be punished, and the punishment for the threat is severe, at least here in America.
You want me to somehow defend dropping the A-bomb? I am not going to travel that road. You are angry and rightfully so about many things and your focus is not where it needs to be. Lambasting me for being an American soldier is quite unproductive unless you did it to just release some anger. If so you go right ahead, I will listen. I may not agree but I will listen. You have no idea what my story is and I have no idea what yours is. I react to what I experience as do you. The world is not black and white as much as you may want it to be. I learned this lesson the hard way. All I wanted to say here is that there was a threat, a real one by a ruthless sick leader of a large country with a capable military. Are there other countries that fall into this category...well Hell yes there is. Should something be done about them? Of course.
chicagofrog
10-11-04, 01:34 PM
hei 7thson, i didn't mean to insult u, really. it was more addressed generally to whomever forgets cuz of his/her citizenship all the right and wrong things one's country has done in the past or keeps doing now.
u're right we don't know each other. may i assure u that if u did, u wouldn't think 2 minutes i see things things in black and white, there's (almost??) no one more all-is-hues-of-grey than me.
and yes i'm angry at the American politics since 2 centuries or so, but not only at them defending all the rest indiscriminately. everybody has faults.
i don't/didn't agree with Iraq's government either, but still don't think they would've attack a country much more powerful like the US.
and i wanted to point out that when one says "a ruthless sick leader of a large country with a capable military : Are there other countries that fall into this category", one should think of the possibility of including the US into that category, is all.
happy to have a conversation with you.
Piddzilla
10-11-04, 05:00 PM
I do not think you have either read everything I have said or you decided to dismiss it. The likilihood of Saddam using WMD's directly against the US was next to nil I concede that. If I implied that I thought differently then I impied wrong and take it back. He was however a threat to many of our allies and has proven to be so in the past. Your example with the gun actually proves my point if you look at it in the correct light. If I owned a gun and have in the past gone around shooting people and you knew this would you want to live next to me? That and the fact that in the U.S. if you are a convicted felon you are not allowed to carry or own a gun. I wonder why that is? Why should Saddam have been allowed to repeat his actions, and why should we believe we could have made him adhere to the resolutions without force when he was doing nothing but laughing at us.
I think I read everything you wrote and I don't think I missed the point. If I understand it correctly you used the example of the bomb threat against that school to illustrate the Iraq situation pre-american invasion. I just do not agree with you. I don't think it illustrates the level of threat against US in reasonable propotions at all. Or against America's allies. Iraq wouldn't do the mistake of attacking another arab state once again, and more importantly, they were not able to. And Israel. That would be more or less like attacking the US. And I can't understand how Cheney can say that the violence in Israel has decreased since the removal of Saddam. I don't have the statistics but here the news still show images of molested corpses every week.
Over to the gun example... See, if you knew a little more about my views about american gun laws, you probably would also know that I can never buy your allegory here. ;D
There are a lot of bad guys in the world that own guns. Some of them have a record, some of them have not, but that doesn't matter when America decides who to attack and who should be left alone. Now, if we came to an agreement that it is the guns, not who own them, that is the problem... then we can start talking. ;)
Once again, I think it is good to overthrow murderous dictators, we should see more of it. But I don't think humanitarian reasons had much to do with the american invasion, except when selling the war to the public. Please note though that I am not saying that the humanitarian work being carried out by people working on iraqi ground is not valuable or good. Those people should have all the credit.
I meant to comment on this in last post but messed up so sorry for double post...anyway:
Point 2 here "old enemy" hence not our enemy anymore.
Communism is back in style? Comeon now explain this statement to me.
Russia in no way compares to former Iraq, at least to me. That is not to say there is no threat there just as there is in many other countries. Maybe the U.S did not approach the worlds problems in the right order. Maybe the check list of countries we should do something about was out of order. I seriously have no idea if we should have done something about the other countries first or not.
By the way I do not think the U.S. is safer now because Saddam is out of power, but I still defend the decision to have him removed. Go figure. My philosophies are a bit skewed I admit, but in the end only kindness matters, oh wait I meant in the end I hope the world is a better place. It is going to take time though. You can rush war, but it is hard to rush peace.
First of all, using Russia as example is a bit absurd in a way, but at the same time it makes sense.
About point 2. It is an old enemy, just like Iraq. The fact that Russia has a president who rubs USA the right way can change really fast.
Communism is back in style. Russians hated the communists deeply in the beginning of the 1990's when the Soviet Union collapsed. The communist party almost disappeared. Now, it's amazing to see how fast they have recovered and a lot of people actually want to go back to the good old days with less democracy but more order. The communist party is not an insignificant factor in Russia today. But probably not the most dangerous one. One of the things that russians long back to the most is the respect that the name Soviet Union brought with it back in the days. And that is something that the ultra nationalists use more effectively today.
...getting sidetracked here..
I don't think your philosophy is skewed. I understand exactly what you mean and I think you want more or less the same result as I want only we differ in our views about how to get there. You are very right when you say that can't rush peace, only I think that is kind of what you are doing when you rush war. I have said it lots of times before and I say it again: Colin Powell had way too little influence in the Bush administration and that's a damn shame.
Piddzilla
10-11-04, 05:07 PM
Hey, you made me write "liklihood"! :blush:
Thanks for the reply Pidds, very informative. I kinda knew that you got my point, but I wanted to make it clear that I had no paranoia about Iraq directly attacking the U.S. I didn't. I still stand by my belief that he was a threat to many countries including his own.
sidenote: Did I use the word Lambasting earlier? I need a drink.
chicagofrog
10-12-04, 07:45 AM
hey now that's the way conversations should be held (all over the world), congrats guys!
"Once again, I think it is good to overthrow murderous dictators, we should see more of it. But I don't think humanitarian reasons had much to do with the american invasion, except when selling the war to the public. "
good point, i don't see how people can still use such an argument (humanitarian reasons) when it's obvious the US don't move its ass when not in its interest, or why wouldn't they do something for Tibet before Tibetan culture and folk and religion become extinct, or in Tchetchenia? and does anybody know/was it ever shown on TV, what happened in Mandchuria? the language is almost extinct now (a few hundreds left), but who ever cared? who ever helped Kurds and Armenians against Turks? and the US support the entry of that kinda country into a Europe they never belonged to for what reasons? if not military strategy?
Bats in the Belfry my friend. If evil is going to rear its ugly head might as well get it over with and cut that head off.
Not if you turn that little old vampire bat into a hydra. Or ignore all the boogie men hiding in the batcave's closet.
I think the only thing that is being hidden in the Batcave closet is Batman's frilly panties. Bruce did seem a bit feminine in the early comics. As far as turning a bat into a hydra well thats why you kill it while it is still a bat.
I think the only thing that is being hidden in the Batcave closet is Batman's frilly panties. Bruce did seem a bit feminine in the early comics. As far as turning a bat into a hydra well thats why you kill it while it is still a bat.
No, no. Follow my metaphor spam it. I made it a vampire bat. It'd infected things. Including Bruce's floral draws ;)
---
Ok, in all seriousness, I'll try and make my worries more concrete:
EDIT: Please note, my good sir (:)), the idea behind this little spiel is that, even with Saddam's threat taken as a given, there are still downsides to the style of intervention we've used which really could create greater "threat"-and-suffering.
-The US (and its itty bitty allies) is struggling to deal with the requirements of an imposed regime change. We don't actually have the manpower or investment to do the job effectively. [i believe that a stable regime, which benefitted the populace, [I]could emerge from all this - but the odds are still against it. And any form of social collapse is liable to kill more through warring and malnutrition than Saddam was likely to do]
-The divisions between the US and its main world competitors has become more entrenched. China, Russia and large trenches of Europe see the line of them-and-us/US as fully drawn now. And although this stems from tussles over oil-influence (to my mind), it can spread it's creepers out into all areas of politcal and financial interaction (as these are the only areas these countries can now 'hit back' in).
-Islamic extremism/terrorism has been helped rather than hindered by this action. The US has spread itself too thin. It's only coz Afghanistan was a NATO operation that there are forces enough to ...just about... keep regime change ticking over. And even there the hunt for Osama was apparently beyond their ability and was left mainly to the Northern Alliance after the Iraq build-up began. Intelligence resources, manpower and investment have all been, understandably, funneled into Iraq, when there are other pressing areas for them to be focused on, with regards to terrorism and world stability.
I'm not saying the idea of interveening in Iraq was wrong. I'm just saying the Bush-admin bit off more than it could chew.
And as such, Iraq might well get chewed up (and other places'll just get spat on).
It's hard being the nation that can make or break world stability. But to my mind, the Bu****es have wielded their power unwisely in Iraq.
---
One thing i'm saying is:
-there's more risk to (multiple forms of) international stability in the US inadvisedly using its all-important influence than Saddam could ever muster.
The other things i want to say will have to wait... got work to do :)
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.