Replies to post #7326 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Tom K]

You
Here is just a short list of others who are perfectly capable of supplying these weapons. This is why I do not buy this argument about Terrorists.

Me
Iraq is a priority threat for three reasons. 1. They have the means to do us harm. 2. They have a desire to us harm (I can site several examples). 3. They believe that they could get away with it. (can also site many examples of why I believe this to be true - remember the assassination attempt on Bush Sr.? Did they fear U.S. retailiation?). Just because a country has the means to do us harm doesn't put them in the same league with Saddam.

You
Back a few post you stated that you didn't see Iraq as such a threat except as it might aid Al Queda. But when I pointed out to you that there are any number of suppliers of these weapons your response seemed to be contradictory to me.

Me
Iraq is a priority threat for three reasons. 1. They have the means to do us harm. 2. They have a desire to us harm (I can site several examples). 3. They believe that they could get away with it. (can also site many examples of why I believe this to be true - remember the asassination attempt on Bush Sr.? Did they fear U.S. retailiation?). Just because a country has the means to do us harm doesn't put them in the same league with Saddam.

CLARIFICATION: Many other countries have the means to do us harm. This alone does not warrant military action. Few countries have the desire to do us harm. I would even say N. Korea doesn't have the desire to do us harm, they just want our aid and money. Far fewer believe they could get away with it. The old U.S.S.R. fell into this category. So does N. Korea. Saddam is a different story. His invasion of Kuwait proved that he is so out of step with the potential consequences of his actions that he did not expect a world wide coalition to throw him out. He is a loose cannon. He would undoubtedly believe that WMD would never be traced back to him and that he would never face retribution. Got it?

Your turn
I wonder if you could delineate for me the successful military campaigns of the last 50 years?

Me
It depends on what you mean by "success". For example, we never lost a major battle in Vietnam but our foriegn policy was a disaster. Don't know if YOU would consider the Cold War a "military campaign", but it was certainly a foriegn policy success with a large military component. How many billions did we liberate? We accomplished our military objectives in Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War, and Kosovo.