|
Dear idiot, > > 24601 you should think twice ! Or maybe you should just think. Thank you - I expect your argument will go down hill from this pinnicle of thought...
================= > > Do you need people to spell out things for you? tell you what... just humour me and try.
================= > > You agreed that they would use WMD on Australia given the chance, and Iraq is the most likely supplier. I did? Well - I don't know what was wrong with me when I agreed to that, because I certainly don't think that Iraq is the most likely supplier. As Osama has funded a terrorist group (shiite) in the south of Iraq in an attempt to overthrow Sadam's largely secular (but nomially sunni) regime - a don't see huge friendship there. but I'm sure you're just about to supply some evidence as even you wouldn't be so dim as to want to invade a country (that's not going to invade us) without having constructed you case...
======================= > > The only other information you need to know is that a WMD used on a populated city will kill between 10,000 and 1 million civilians and probably set the (global) economy back 5-10 years. Indeed - that is useful additional information to consider. We should check those numbers, see what the effects are of using different WMDs, determine the probabilities of use and how these change under different scenarios and include that in our cost-benefit analysis.
========================== > > If this is a benign outcome, then appeasement is the policy to use. I don't think anybody has stated that death is a benign outcome. So this is a strawman... (which seem all too common among you war-nicks these days)
================ > > If this is the worst outcome, then forcing disarmament upon Iraq is the best policy to use. ummm... try that again?
have you ever heard the phrase 'non-sequitor' before? try again. or better still... just leave it to strawman, who at least actually can put forward a half-sensible case. 24601
| 
