Why didn't the mainstream media cover this?

Has anyone actually considered, for even a moment, that Iraq may have been the next Afghanistan-esque breeding ground for terrorism?

What makes people soooo sure that's not the case?

 

That no evidence supports this claim, either now or before the invasion, while ample evidence existed about Afghanistan even before Sept. 11.

Many countries may be the next breeding ground for terrorism, we don't have the resources to gut them all. Why not spend resources where a proven threat exists? Is it fair to make pre-emptive strikes against countries without evidence?

 

is this some kind of hypothetical BS you created in your little mind to support your claims?

 

Couple of points:

"Why not spend resources where a proven threat exists?"

What strikes me about this statement, is that, I would imagine, terrorists specifically structure their activities such that their threat cannot be proven. What then?

 

No. It's actually a rational, logical, and real possibility, for which I want to see who "ducks" because it's uncomfortable, and goes against what some people firmly believe.



heh, the results are already coming in loud and clear...

 

Can anyone "prove" no evidence exists?

 

I love this ad absurdum argument, so here it goes again...
Has anyone actually considered, for even a moment, that Squid's house may be the next Afghanistan-esque breeding ground for terrorism?

What makes people sooooooooooo sure that's not the case? (Notice the use of extra "o"'s to imply a ridiculous absolutness of certainty that other MUST have if they don't agree with me.)

I can backwards rationalize any act I decide to carry out, no matter how despicable, immoral, and irrational it may seem at the time by saying, "Fantastic potential threat, blah, blah, evil guy, blah, blah, we're still alive, blah, blah, everyone's happier now, blah, blah, future brighter, don't argue with me or you may be a threat, blahbidty, blah."
If this should be the foundation of reasoning in carrying out war, then we made big mistakes by not going to war with the USSR and East Germany...and we should be going to war with North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Thailand, France, may as well throw in Canada, France, Japan, and heck, you never know, the potential is there that one day the UK might no be our friend so let's take care of them now too.

 

You worry too much, Squid. Let Condy worry about it, it's her job after all

 

do you have evidence that proof of no evidence exists?

 

I LOVE it.

You know you're asking the right questions when people start getting pissed off and all defensive.

People who have rational reasons behind such concepts generally do not exhibit this behavior.

:lol:

FREAKS!

 

...and have you ever considered that someone just might have enough "proof", but for certain reasons the info. can't be made "public"?

THIS is precisely where people who use this argument stumble all over themselves. They deal in absolutes, and simply close their ears to any other possible scenarios.

 

So my comment was a bit cynical, but I think there's a lot of truth to it; North Korea has greater military might, nearby neighbors that we have good relations with (S. Korea, Japan), as well as a neighbor that we have OK relations with, but we fear (China). I think that, if we got involved with them, there'd be concern that China would help them and that they (N. Korea) would launch attacks on, most likely, South Korea.

Iraq didn't have the capability to launch long-range attacks, so there's less of a concern with them.

How's that for armchair international relations?

 

yeah, right, as if we're pissed off and defensive. You should change your nickname to MadHatter

 

I would argue that, if you're going to invade a country, the responsibility should be on the person doing the invading to prove (or at least show with some reasonable amount of certainty) that evidence exists. Did Saddam try to get weapons of mass destruction? I'm sure he did. All evidence gathered before and after the war show that he was spectacularly unsuccessful in accomplishing these goals.

Is it possible some "secret" evidence exists? Sure. Anything's possible. However, I would imagine that something would have leaked out by now. It seems to me that it'd be hard to keep something like that (evidence of a large WMD program in Iraq) covered up, given that everyone is looking for it. Most of what has come out has been debunked (i.e. the Nigerian uranium or the Iraqi source who was, aparently non-ironically, called "Curveball").

 

I never said that possible scenarios were impossible. You seem to be the one stumbling in this argument.
What I'm saying is that if you use the argument that no tangible or substantial evidence is required to justify a decision then EVERYTHING can ALWAYS be justified because the future is open to ALL possibilities.

Can you prove that evil alien forces aren't hoving above the earth in ships using cloaking devices ready to attack the US? By your reasoning you can't argue with taking immediate action without any evidence. Let's launch all of our nukes into the sky now!

 

I'm not angry, just bewildered.

 

I agree.

This is, by far, the most level-headed, rational presentation of answers to issues I raised.

 

This is what happens when you try to have a discussion with someone who just likes to argue.

Is "Freaks!" your example of rational reasons and appropriate behavior?