The liklihood of WMD's

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?

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

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...

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)

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

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.

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.

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?

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

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.

What do you feel the threat was? And who were the potential targets?

I think most people are upset because Bush lied about WMDs existing.


I would have been upset even if we had found WMDs.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

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.

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 feel the same

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.

me too

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.

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.

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 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 novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

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.