Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "They can't use them if they don't either have them already, or have the technology to make them already."
Nowhere in the article does it say that they will use them in the future. What it does say, quite explicitly, is that the plan for defending Iraq includes:
First, deployment of the Republican Guard forces at the periphery of the cities, primarily Baghdad ...
Second, deployment of special forces that will include the 'elite of the elite' – in his words – inside the capital Baghdad, so that they can participate in street combat ...
Third, deployment of groups of 'Saddam's Fedayeen' within the capital and in other cities, to control the internal situation and participate in the resistance operations. #reply-18277429
None of those three elements includes WMDs. Consequently, your statement "They can't use them if they don't either have them ..." is inoperative for absence of "use", at least in their admitted plan.
No, this is not a "difference between thinking like a lawyer and thinking like an engineer". If I took the LSAT, my scores would leave you quite envious. My GRE scores would stun you. My record in graduate school would leave you floored. There is nothing wrong with my analytical reasoning, logical reasoning, or reading comprehension. These are tools that every engineer finds just as useful as lawyers do.
-- Carl
P.S. I'm a hell of a lot smarter than I am nice, LOL. |
