A hypothetical scenario, based on what could have happened with Iraq.

[Commander PK]

A hypothetical scenario. The year is 2008. Saddam Hussein is still in power in Iraq, and due to world indifference has been able to manufacture several long range missles, that deliver chemical agents, ricin, VX, Mustard Gas, DM, etc. Due to his long standing hatred for the United States he is finally able to attack the continental U.S. and launches his missles at U.S. targets. Thousands of Americans die, as we are not able to destroy all the missles before they hit. A catostrophe worse then 9/11 occurs. As a survivor, would you look back to 2003, and say, "you know, we should have taken him out when we had the chance, and now look what has happened." We should have done something when he couldn't prove he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Now we have to fight a much more potent enemy, that has the ability to inflict serious damage, and kill us by the thousands.

Was it better to fight the enemy now, or wait until an event such as this had occured. Your thoughts.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

I'll be honest I dont think that precise scenario would have happened but something similar would have.

He would have quickly rebuilt his army as soon as the sanctions were lifted and attempted to have re-conquered the Middle East. More then likely agents of his would have gotten their grimey hands on these weapons and brought them over to at least Europe if not here.

Point being he was a diabolical man with fairly evil intentions.

[Ancalagon the Black]

If, in one year, the entire Islamic world is pitted against the USA and its allies, and Islamic terrorists (through the support of several nations that turned to fundamentalism after the US invasion of Iraq, including the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan and Iraq, AND benefiting from indifference by the UN, which the USA alienated) manage to detonate a nuclear weapon inside the USA...what would you say?

Yes, it's a silly question for me to ask. Hint, hint.

[Commander PK]

Ancal, I believe that will not happen, because I have faith in what we are doing. I refuse to believe that the entire Muslim world would unite against the United States. Is it so silly to imagine that a lunatic dictator, if left unchecked developed the means to attack a country that he despised? I base my scenario partly on historical fact. Saddam had WMD, atleast at one time, and he used them on people he didn't like. Where is the fact you base yours on? A few desperate insurgents killing and mutilating innocent civilians? I think to imply that most of the muslim world would unite behind these nuts is silly. If I were Muslim, I'd be offended by that notion.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Well, much of my family is Muslim. I also agree that it's an extreme scenario, but I think your scenario is equally extreme. If Saddam had continued on the path of developing weapons, our intelligence would probably have detected them before he used them (after all, if we get reports that he might have them when they're nonexistent or easily hidden, imagine what the intelligence would be if they were deployable). In addition, if Saddam was prepared to use WMDs in an attack, world opinion would be solidly against him and we wouldn't have had to go it alone.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that I was against the war because of the lack of UN support. The UN's position makes no difference, ethically. But it does provide political capital.

[Commander PK]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Well, much of my family is Muslim. I also agree that it's an extreme scenario, but I think your scenario is equally extreme. If Saddam had continued on the path of developing weapons, our intelligence would probably have detected them before he used them (after all, if we get reports that he might have them when they're nonexistent or easily hidden, imagine what the intelligence would be if they were deployable). In addition, if Saddam was prepared to use WMDs in an attack, world opinion would be solidly against him and we wouldn't have had to go it alone.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that I was against the war because of the lack of UN support. The UN's position makes no difference, ethically. But it does provide political capital.

Ok, but my point is, when do we decide to deal with the problem? Once he's developed the means to reap much more damage upon us, upon our troops, or when we have a clear advantage, and in the grand scheme of things, the logistical risk is minimal? Do we fight them as we have, although earlier in the war we thought there was a possibility that he would use chemical weapons on our troops, or when we KNOW with absolute certainty that he has them, and we KNOW with absolute certainty that he WILL use them. When we know he has the ability to inflict not just hundreds of casualties, but thousands? And as for your statement that we are going it alone, Ancal, we are going it alone because we had to enforce what the other nations would not. What good is passing U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution without backing them up. Without walking the proverbial walk. We have done what we had to do. If we didn't who would have? Where would we be with Iraq right now, if we hadn't invaded?

[Commander PK]

and let's face it Ancal, we went it alone (that's debatable) because many people, governments in this world are chicken sh*t, it pains me to say. The spanish elections are proof enough of that.

[Guest 979guy]

Originally posted by Skinsfan75

A hypothetical scenario. The year is 2008. Saddam Hussein is still in power in Iraq, and due to world indifference has been able to manufacture several long range missles, that deliver chemical agents, ricin, VX, Mustard Gas, DM, etc. Due to his long standing hatred for the United States he is finally able to attack the continental U.S. and launches his missles at U.S. targets. Thousands of Americans die, as we are not able to destroy all the missles before they hit. A catostrophe worse then 9/11 occurs. As a survivor, would you look back to 2003, and say, "you know, we should have taken him out when we had the chance, and now look what has happened." We should have done something when he couldn't prove he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Now we have to fight a much more potent enemy, that has the ability to inflict serious damage, and kill us by the thousands.

Was it better to fight the enemy now, or wait until an event such as this had occured. Your thoughts.

Now, switch "Saddam" with "Ayatollah Khamenei" and "Iraq" with "Iran". Still could happen, you know. So where do you stop - or rather - do you continue?

Ponder all about it at Sarge's.