If a rouge country has a WMD but the capabilities of that WMD are limited and could kill a max of 2000 people. Wouldn't it make more sense to spend more money on technology to dectect and render the WMD inert rather that invade and entire country killing many more and spending a hell of alot more. Is there some greater good behind these actions?? Are the leaders that make these kinds of desisions looking out for the greater good of the world as a whole? If so why not just tell the people the truth?? ............. If killing a few thousand people could save millions. I can understand that kind of logic but is that really the case??................. Still no WMD's found yet?? Does Iran really have the capability or does the world interest need another "secure" Oil supply?
2006-06-25 05:24:06 · 4 answers · asked by captpcb216 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I believe you answered your own question!
Excellent insight into the realities of the current administration!
Thanks for being open minded and seeing things for what they are!
2006-06-25 05:30:10 · answer #1 · answered by Truth Seeker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're looking at this with the perfect vision of hindsight. If Saddam didn't have mass murder capabilities, then he should've just said so and none of this would've ever happened. But he didn't. He played coy, implying with words and actions that he did indeed have massive WMD.
And remember, just because we haven't found WMD doesn't mean they didn't exist. Saddam had plenty of time to bury them and/or ferry them into Syria. I'm not saying that definitely happened, but it is wholly feasible.
At the beginnig of the war, the truth was told, as it was known through intelligence reports. Maybe those reports were wrong, maybe they weren't. But in a closed society/government like Saddam's was, it would've been impossible to have complete 100% verifiable knowledge.
2006-06-25 12:32:31 · answer #2 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am guessing that this is not a hypothetical question. If you are referring to the US, you will kindly remember that when Bush declared his intention to invade Iraq, our intelligence was that Iraq had very powerful WMD - In fact, if you will recall, many Dems were all in favor of the invasion. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20. - This woulda, coulda, shoulda-speak is what all the parties use when some action of their opposing party does not work out as expected.
2006-06-25 12:30:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not about greater good or anything like that.
There are different catch phrases and issues that the government uses to give themselves a blank check to do whatever the heck they want to.
"WMD" "9/11" "protecting marriage" "spreading democracy"
It's all just manipulation.
2006-06-25 13:10:44 · answer #4 · answered by squirellywrath 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋