He is more likely to give WMDs to a terrorist group that will use them against us, which will give him deniability. He will be secretive about it so that international opinion will be on his side if the US wants to retaliate. I mean if there is no direct evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or 8/24 or whenever the next attack might occur then we shouldn’t attack, right?

2)Saddam is an idiot who will give WMDs to terrorists who will eventually be a threat to him.

What? Why wouldn’t he? I fail to see the logic behind this. If Saddam gives Al Qaeda anthrax, do you really think they will target Iraq instead of the US? Al Qaeda might (MIGHT!) be a threat to him in the future, but at present they ARE (according to yourself) an ally of convenience, so that means at present they will work together against our national interest.

3)Saddam can destroy the US. (STRAWMAN ALERT!)

This is my favorite. “Ridiculous! The worst he could possibly do is detonate a nuke in a major city killing millions! I hardly call that a threat to national security!” You may be willing to absorb thousands of dead civilians to avoid a preemptive strike, but I am not.

4)Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction.
and 5)The US won’t suffer many casualties.

We’re trying to invade before he develops them. If we wait too long, he will definitely have them. He might have them already. We might suffer significant casualties in urban combat. But nothing is for certain. Just because it’s difficult or risky doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Some things are worth fighting and sacrificing for. The big question is whether in this case it is worth it. By the way, the army does have gas masks and other protections from chemical warfare, so it might not be that bad. (That’s one of the reasons we’re not invading in the summer, it gets hot in those suits.)

Your solution may work if we lived in Hesiod’s Fantasy World, but in the real world we WOULD have UN resolutions and hearings on Capitol Hill. Legitimate link to 9/11? The Czechs have always stood by their story about the meeting in Prague. You want to wait until he’s about to imminently attack the US? Fine, the rest of us just think it would be better to start earlier.

Belly up with some substantive rebuttals instead of flaccidly attacking the STYLE of my argument.

–Hesiod

Of course you think what he said was “well thought out.” It never addresses the real problems with an attack on Iraq.

Just like all chickenbloggers avoid discussing the real issues and focus on easy-to-defat strawman arguments.

Take a shot at refuting what I’ve posted on my blog.

-Hesiod

Go here:

http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2002_08_04_counterspin_archive.html#79938351

And here:

http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2002_08_04_counterspin_archive.html#79844456

…for a more realistic analysis of the serious CONS involved with launching an attack on Iraq.

Your analysis is worthless unless you deal with reality, and not trumped up fantasy arguments from the finge left.

–Hesiod