The Cost of the War on Terrorism

"Nightmare casting" is exaclty what you're doing. You're going through revisionist speculative exercises to come up with all sorts of justifications to support different premises.

1. Saddam might be cooperating with Al Qaeda so we have to invade.
2. No Saddam was an enemy of Al Qaeda so we have to invade before they take him out.

Each time the premise is changed to support the result.

This isn't good policy this its a fishing expeditions to come up with some justification that sticks. There's nothing wrong with that in itself except that as you note at the begining of this thread there is a costs.

I don't know about you but for me I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that people are willing to support sending our troops into battle based upon wildly speculative nightmare casting.

 

Giddyup;

Your speculation points out another thing. The fact that a war supporter like yourself is putting forward an argument that hasn't even been hinted at by the Admin. shows how weak their argument is if even supporters of the policy feel the need to speculate on their own.

 

This is even more wildly speculative. Now Saddam would use AQ and then they would slit his throat.

No offense but this is sounding more and more like a Tom Clancy novel. You're presuming several things that there is very little evidence to support.

So again it all comes down to getting rid of Saddam. You're trying to make arguments fit the results. It seems to me that you're saying it doesn't really matter what reason there is for getting rid of Saddam as long as we do it.

 

It isn't about special knowledge. It is about what the administration said, what the results are, what the administration's actions have been to those who were correct, and what their actions have been to those who were wrong but still stood by the false claims, and painted the best possible scenario for going to war. It is about the studies, and conclusions reached by folks appointed by this very same whitehouse, and those reached by the military.

Of all those studies, and conclusions, as well as those by people appointed by more independent organizations not one of them show that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Not one of them shows that Saddam was in danger of being toppled by Al Qaeda or working with Al Qaeda. None of that has been shown by Bush's own appointed overseers, and commissions.

You don't need any 'special knowledge' just look at the knowledge this administration and our military have provided. That is all you have to do.

The end result is that Saddam wasn't a threat to the U.S.

 

I don't believe any report has listed him as a credible threat to the U.S. under any timeline. He was easily defeated in the early 90's. His military at the time of the Bush II's invasion was only at about half the capability it was at that time of GWI, and at this point Saddam had no WMD's, a no fly zone over the northern, and southern chunks of his nation, heavy surveilence, with inspectors given access again inside the country, and potential for even closer surveilence to be ongoing. Nobody has suggested a timeline where he woudl be a threat to the U.S. except for Bush when lied about the IAEA report, and then subsequent reports in which Bush claimed that Saddam was 6 months away from a nuke.

No other report that I am aware of provides a future timeline where somehow Saddam was a threat.

 

Unlike many anti-war people I don't believe oil was a primary factor. It was a factor but not the primary IMO. My own belief is that the motivations were mostly political.

That said though you are claiming special knowledge by going beyond any Admin. stated reasons for invading Iraq and offering a whole new explanation.

You're doing exactly what you criticize others by speculating on something that no one in the Admin has publically stated as a plausible reason for invading Iraq.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You're creating arguments to fit the results.

To me that's a sign of how much the Admin. has failed to make their case when even war supporters have to go backwards to come up with justifications for the invasion that the Admin hasn't made. It just shows how little people buy the stated arguments of spreading democracy and finding WMD's.

 

But don't you think if they were that plausible in the Big Picture the Admin. themselves would've put them forward to convince the large percentage of the US and World who are skeptical?

I'm not one to deny your fantasizing, fantasize all you want I'm doing it right now about Fergie's abdominals. Just saying that whether you feel compelled or not that you're calling it plausible shows that on some level you feel the Admin's rationals are weak since they've never brought it up or you wouldn't have bothered bringing it up in a debate.