Oh Sam. What you're missing is the best practice of strategic prioritization.
All of the Hussein-sucks arguments are true, but what is that worth in dollars and lives? And how does that value compare to other places we could spend such as China and Afghanistan? The very fact that Afghanistan was invaded by Bush and he never finished his job there invalidates any argument that we could afford 2 wars. Unfortunately for you, there is simply no plausible argument that Iraq was worth it. But I will offer one caveat: if there were unstated strategic objectives such as securing a presence in the region to protect our oil supply, then maybe it was our only strategic choice. If you to win the Iraq argument I recommend you focus all your efforts on finding evidence of unstated strategic intent. Any other argument was proven meritless years ago. If you need links to figure that out then you are the wrong person to find the right answer. On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > But it states they were actively working on it and succeeded in 2002. > > http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/ > > - In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a > group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially > Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against > American forces there. > > ... > The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many > at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of > supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report > concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's > organization was similar to the relationship between the rival > Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense > for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size > of the overall market. > > The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, > 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat > aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the > detritus of Saddam's regime." > > . > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There are lots of little details you could get into but the report >> group chose to highlight this as a top level, summary, take away >> conclusion: >> >> "Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary >> BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, >> but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a >> course." >> >> Yes, the country could have started very rudimentary production of >> biological agents like anthrax. Almost every country in the world >> could do that. However, once again, *there is no evidence they were >> going to do that*. >> >> There was no "program". There were no advanced development projects. >> There was no infrastructure for developing anything beyond rudimentary >> capabilities even if they wanted to. There was no evidence that there >> were any plans to even create a rudimentary program. >> >> It isn't a matter of Sam and I reading the same thing and coming away >> with different conclusions. The conclusions are explicitly laid out in >> the report. Ignoring them is simply willful ignorance. >> >> Judah >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:48 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I read and wondered why they found a way to create B. thuringiensis >>>> undetected from the inspectors. They had no use for it and it was made >>>> the same was as anthrax. You can say they never intended to do that >>>> but there's no other reason. >>>> >>> >>> Well yeah, i think they intended to have some sort of clandestine BW >>> program....definitely. I just don't think it was a threat to the US. Well, a >>> minor threat, since no BW program is threat-free...but no way was it worth a >>> 10 year, 3 trillion dollar war that killed 4,000+ American sons and >>> daughters. >>> >>> >>>> Technically the didn't produce Anthrax but the experiments were >>>> successful in 2002 and they were t weeks away from full Anthrax >>>> production once word was given. Had to be a reason. >>>> >>> >>> Yep....i think they wanted some biological weapons. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342743 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
