[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Moiraine: quote: Originally posted by Larry_OHF: If a man is on a bus and says, "I have a bomb and this whole freaking bus is going down in flames if you do not cooperate, then a person jumps him as he is making his speech and kills him, then we learn that the would-be terrorist was only carrying a coke bottle...the would-be hero is still considered received with warm embraces, even if there was no real danger. Isn't this kinda the same, but to a larger degree? That is what I am getting out of the topic so far. If I am wrong, point me in the right direction to see another point of view.

Larry, you make exactly my point. Your analogy is not accurate - you forget the little detail of the presence of the inspectors saying back then that Saddam did NOT have WOMDs. Let me propose this one instead : you have suspiscion that your neighbour next door is planning a act of terrorism - you go to the police and tell them of your suspiscions - they go to the guy's house, do a search, and come out saying that the current search showed nothing wrong but to be sure they will come again next Saturday - but you are so sure, so you don't wait until Saturday, you take your gun and storm the neighbour's house.

Now you have made a wreck of the guy's house and killed his dog - and the police further researches show that no evidences were found that the guy was planning anything. Will your other neighbours acclaim you as saviour, or will they look at you in suspiscion, thinking that they may well be your next target ? Of course, you are so sure, you can always argue that the guy KNEW how to make a bomb anyway ...

Antryg, I am not hinting at conspiracy - I am hinting at a guy who may well be trying to find a way to look good and win the next elections even in the case of no WOMD ever found.

EDIT : Typing too fast, spelling doesn't follow ... [/QUOTE]Your analogy isn't entirely correct either, Moiraine, because Saddam was had made threats before and had deliberately thwarted or hindered the weapons inspection process.

To be more accurate, you analogy would have to include the fact that the neighbor had made terrorist threats and that - when the police showed up to inspect the house - they were not allowed access to his basement or to a couple of rooms upstairs. The neighbor deliberately denies them access to areas they could reasonably expect to contain evidence of weapons to use in this terrorist act.

Now - even if the neighbor has no weapons hidden in the basement or upstairs - is it not prudent to proceed as if he does rather than hope he doesn't???

Getting back to Larry's original example...you could include the aspect of weapons inspections by saying a guy on the back of the bus speaks up and says "He's bluffing...the only thing I saw him put in his coat pocket was a coke bottle". NOW, the would-be hero has new information that he can use (or ignore) to determine how he should handle the situation. Does he take the word of the guy in the back (who is an impartial 3rd party)? Or does he decide that just because he didn't see him put a bomb in his pocket doesn't mean one wasn't already there before he got on the bus?

While the WOMD weren't the only reason the U.S. went to war, it WAS the biggest "selling point" of the war and it was all most of us heard. So the fact that none have turned up so far is placing larger portion of "eggs" on the face of the Bush Administration as time goes by.

On the other hand, I think it is now safe to say that U.S. isn't going to "plant" any evidence of WOMD (as many suggested would happen). With the lack of evidence found so far and the increasing accusations against the intelligence used regarding the WOMD, if the U.S. was going to "create" evidence, I think they would have done so by now.

Of course, that's just my opinion.