Reply #13: an actual logical argument that is, technically, valid, the POSSIBILITY of [View All]

[mrhopeforwes]

WMD. because, yes, it's true that if one acted out the worst case scenario and, hence, believed that, despite the prepronderance of intelligence indicating that Saddam didn't have the actual weapon developed yet, it's better safe than sorry. and since it's always better to err on the side of caution, since not doing so could result in a mushroom cloud, we had to invade just in case. After all, he already used chemical weapons.

...hence, all the counterarguments you could ever make would be moot because, technically, it's logical for the other side to always win by saying, "but you never know."

...although, as George Carlin put: "Not true. Sometimes you know."

...from Wes Clark's Winning Modern Wars: ‘No alternatives to the use of force were attempted. Longer-term containment, accompanied by intrusive inspections, was dismissed without real discussion. The viability of inspections was consistently undercut by statements from leading administration officials who debunked them in principle as ineffective. Therefore, it mattered not whether Saddam complied with the UN Security Council Resolution or not—no compliance would ever have been adequate to assuage the Bush’s administration’s concerns about his hidden capabilities. …Nor was any evidence presented of any imminent Iraqi threat to the United States or its allies. And imminence was the key.’