Officials warn: Terror threat is 'significant'

USA Today ^ | 2/11/03 | Mimi Hall and Jack Kelley

[The Great Satan]

Then you are quite naive, I'm afraid.

[Travis McGee]

We shall see who is naive in weeks, not months.

[kodaChrome]

To fight or not. That is the question. In this context, I see two basic types of people. Those who understand what is happening and those who don't. Technological diffusion is increasing dramatically such that persons of lesser and lesser means now have access to technologies comamnding greater and greater amounts of energy (and potential to produce entropy). This is the fundamental evolution that is occurring and those who don't understand this are advocating suicide for western civilization. The basic absence of law and order in totalitarian regimes can no longer simply be ignored by the United States because, as a result of diffusion, what happens in these countries now directly affects us here. This was not true in WWII or Vietnam, or even as recently as just before 9/11. This trend only grows worse with time. It is important that people understand this dramatic historic shift, and it's implications for civilized society.

Ergo, I fully support thorough, comprehensive and relentless military action (and a full national mobiliziation to support it) NOW against any and all regimes that have, by their past behavior, shown no interest in maintaining law and order within their respective jurisdictions. Law and order must be established first, then we can worry about the ancillary stuff (such as wealthy folks who hate civlization; i.e. Osama Bin Laden).

This short list would likely include Iraq, Syria, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and perhaps others. This should be done at any cost not exceeding the loss of western civilization itself.

[justa-hairyape]

We will go to some lengths to create the impression that it is Bush who is the "tough cop" here, even if the desired end result is gradually increased isolation of Iraq, on a timescale commensurate with our capability to build up our civil defnses against the threat he presents.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. So if I understand your theories correctly, we will eventually isolate Iraq when our civil defenses are ramped up. Exactly what form of isolation do you think Saddam will accept ? The loss of Northen Iraq to the Kurds and Turkey ? The loss of Southern Iraq to the Shiites ? Is that the carrots we are offerring Saddam to eliminate the Anthrax threat ? If our long term goal is to eliminate Saddam once our civil defenses are ramped up, (which by all external indications seems to be whats actually occurring), why would Saddam not see this coming and say, screw it. If you are going to take me out, I let loose my anthrax. This end game requires a very very delicate balancing act. I dont think Bush et. al. should assume Saddam is as pliable as the progressive Democrats with their inferiority complexes. If Saddam has the anthrax, he wont be mired within the confines of inferiority. And since he is diabolical, we can never trust his word that the anthrax threat has been eliminated. IMHO, Baghdad should have been nuked in 1991.

[The Great Satan]

This end game requires a very very delicate balancing act.

You bet.

[The Great Satan]

What we have here is a hostage situation. A career criminal has pulled off his piece-de-resistance -- 9-11 -- and he's taken a bunch of hostages in an attempt to get away with it. The hostages are you, me, everybody. Now the cops (Bush and our allies) have to try and resolve the crisis with the minimum loss of life. This analogy -- or rather, this reconceptualization of the situation -- underlines the importance of the good-cop-bad-cop gambit. The hostage-taker has to be left with something to play for. That's where the "good cops" come in. For as long as possible, Saddam has to be convinced that he has a shot of getting off scott-free. His old "friends" -- Russia and France -- come in handy here. Towards the end, he's going to give up on getting off scott-free. He's still going have to be left with something to play for, even if it's only Baghdad. This can be arranged.

[justa-hairyape]

So we must be hoping that as the criminal Saddam keeps lowering his ransom demands, he will eventually settle on remaining the 'King Of Babylon', otherwise known to the west as the 'Butcher of Baghdad'. Then I suppose at some point in the not too distant future he will be out on a balcony smoking a cuban, when blame. Thats all fine and dandy, but someone out there still has the anthrax. Heck, we dont even know how much they have. This also requires that Saddam have complete control of the deterrent. For all we know he is contemplating giving some of it to his friends at the New York Times editorial staff.

[justa-hairyape]

Oops. That should be 'blam', not 'blame'. As in someone covertly takes him out. Been fighting a tough flu the past few days.

[The Great Satan]

So we must be hoping that as the criminal Saddam keeps lowering his ransom demands, he will eventually settle on remaining the 'King Of Babylon', otherwise known to the west as the 'Butcher of Baghdad'.

That's about the size of it. The military utility of the anthrax will be reduced over time, since counter-measures are possible, and we are now pursuing that full-bore. So, the situation is not hopeless. But it is certainly the gravest threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis and, unlike that affair, is not liable to be resolved quickly.

[johnny7]

Who are you... Jimmy Carter? Delicate balancing act?

Once we have a lull in our bombing, Saddam will release every chemical weapon he has left.

That is the “end scenario”. Game over... we take out Baghdad with tac-nukes.

This ain't no cop show dude, it's reality.

[section9]

What are you calling bullsh#it? Do you have facts to prove the bullsh#t is not true?

Excuse me. It's not my job to do your spadework.

When did it fall on me to provide proof that someone's wild assertions are fatuous bullsh#t? They are laughable on their face, especially given the fact that they read like the lead article from The Spotlight.

It does not. It falls on Great Satan, and on you if you believe him, to deny that:

Al Qaeda was the prime mover behind 9-11, not Saddam.

It falls on GS (and you, if necessary) to prove that Saddam has some Anthrax Magic Bullet stashed around our country and that Bush's entire enterprise is a big bluff.

You must prove that we will never attack Saddam, and not invent silly fallback positions that state that, well, Bush might sieze Kurdistan and Shia territory, but he'll never take Baghdad. GS did this in case he got proven wrong.

Great Powers do not move huge field armies and all their impedimenta halfway across the planet, then do nothing because of some secondary concern like Anthrax.

I must prove nothing. You must prove everything. It is not up to me to disprove the rantings of someone's fevered imagination.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[justa-hairyape]

GS did this in case he got proven wrong

Its not about being proven right or wrong. Its about conjecturing about what might be going on. Trying to match reality with fact. Since neither one of us actually knows the classified truth, it can be somewhat enlightening to speculate on the what if's. Thats whats going on here. Btw- If either one of us is privy to the classified truth and we are leaking it, technically we could be capitally punished for treason.

[oceanperch]

Well I was going to renew my yearly support to FR after I was grossed out by the Freeper who ate 101 mussels for a FRundraiser but your assistance just tipped the scale to do just that. i love learning new things of interest!

So here is the result of my informal experiment.

WWI Declared by US on a Wends.
WWII Fri.
Korean Wends.
Nam Tues.
Desert Shield Thurs.
Desert Storm Wends.

We were hit at PearlHarbor on a Sunday

So if I wanted to catch the US off guard I would think Sat would be a day when the Govt. is shut down and folks are out doing community/social activities. It would take some time to get Govt. Officials rounded up to address the public.

On another note Dashle came out today and said "is that the best Bushs' adminastration can do is tell people to go out and buy plastic and duct tape" as usual taking things out of context.
I read the govt. suggestion to prepare Americans against all emergencies it was rather lengthy and very dry reading.
Of coarse having it posted as a FReeper did as a thread with all the feedback makes it sooo much more of an interesting read to get through.

[section9]

Its not about being proven right or wrong. Its about conjecturing about what might be going on. Trying to match reality with fact. Since neither one of us actually knows the classified truth, it can be somewhat enlightening to speculate on the what if's. Thats whats going on here. Btw- If either one of us is privy to the classified truth and we are leaking it, technically we could be capitally punished for treason.

Partially true. Only I don't have any biblical attachment to my end of the speculative spectrum.

I just don't believe what GS is saying and don't believe that the known facts of the deployment and the war planning support his central assertion: that this is a bluff and that Bush will never order an attack on Iraq because Saddam has planted enough WMD in this country to be able to kill us in the millions and lay our cities to waste.

Consider: we have sent upwards to 175,000 combat and support personnel to the Gulf.

We have engaged in a worldwide opinion-molding campaign that has not been seen since the Gulf War.

We have placed enormous national prestige on the line and tied it to an outcome in which Saddam passes into history and Iraq is liberated.

We have decided that Iraq is a major battle in the war against Al Qaeda; we wish to deny AQ the possibility of Saddam acting as their quartermaster. Not to achieve such an end would be a major defeat in the battle against Bin Laden and his pals.

Now then: would we have done all this if Saddam had us by the throat? Would we have set ourselves up for a humiliating climbdown if Saddam had Anthrax Kommandos in our major cities? I think not. We would have concentrated on Al Qaeda or the North Koreans, and we would have made a seperate peace with Saddam.

That's why none of what GS wrote makes any sense.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[luckystarmom]

I don't have the tape or plastic sheeting yet. My kids have been sick all week, so I haven't had time to run to the hardware store.

I don't quite know what room to set up. Are we supposed to have all the supplies in that one room???

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Warning was given to Adm Kimmel that the axis tended to hit on weekends. September 3, 1939 start WWII. Pearl Harbor !12/07/1941. Hitler Marched into Austria on a Sunday in March of 1938.

[justa-hairyape]

'....this is a bluff and that Bush will never order an attack on Iraq because Saddam has planted enough WMD in this country to be able to kill us in the millions and lay our cities to waste.'

I think the theory is more along the lines of explaining why the attack has been delayed so long. Personally I think the attack is happening very soon, but I also thought that quite a few months ago. Delaying has given Saddam and the terrorists more time. It has also allowed North Korea to become a big pain.

Consider: we have sent upwards to 175,000 combat and support personnel to the Gulf.

Thats what perplexes me. We had close to that amount for Gulf War 1, when Saddams Military was much stronger then it is now. This buildup shows that either Bush has expanded his mission beyond Iraq or that something along the lines of TGS theories may have been in play.

We have decided that Iraq is a major battle in the war against Al Qaeda; we wish to deny AQ the possibility of Saddam acting as their quartermaster. Not to achieve such an end would be a major defeat in the battle against Bin Laden and his pals.

Its not a possibility. Its an established fact now. See. Even Bush et. al. agree that Saddam poses a great threat to the US. Wonder why ? You did see Colin Powell talk about the unmanned drones capable of spraying biologicals and chemicals, right ?

We would have concentrated on Al Qaeda or the North Koreans, and we would have made a seperate peace with Saddam.

You cant make peace with someone as diabolical as Saddam. That would have been a guaranteed loss.

That's why none of what GS wrote makes any sense.

TGS has been correct up till now, no full scale attack on Iraq, but like TGS stated, Bush has had his foot on the accelerator while the rest of those 'in the know' have had their foots on the brakes. IMHO - The brakes are about to melt off. Now you can jump up and down about being right when that happens, but you might want to be a little careful because they still have 'no clue' as to who sent the anthrax and the blackmailing letters.

[section9]

TGS has been correct up till now, no full scale attack on Iraq, but like TGS stated, Bush has had his foot on the accelerator while the rest of those 'in the know' have had their foots on the brakes. IMHO - The brakes are about to melt off. Now you can jump up and down about being right when that happens, but you might want to be a little careful because they still have 'no clue' as to who sent the anthrax and the blackmailing letters.

No, that's simply stating: "the attack hasn't happened yet, ergo, my first assumtions about the situation are entirely correct". Then insert cut and paste links about anthrax to prove your point, Q.E.D.. That's just nonsense. If you follow Occam's Razor, the more prosaic and realistic reasons have to do with logistics and political factors (i.e.: getting troops in place and lining up allies, something that wasn't in place last summer) appear far more reasonable.

The only people who have had their feet on the brakes have been the folks at State, if only because that's the institutional culture of that department. I don't believe it has anything to do with anthrax. The rest of the "in the know" crowd, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, have all been full speed ahead on the entire issue.

One thing: I am in no way denying Saddam's potential ability to use anthrax, VX, etc., on a massive scale in this country using cutouts. I am saying that I believe TGS to be wrong when he indicates that the attack will not happen because Saddam has seeded this country with anthrax-carrying sleeper cells. That was the central thrust of his entire thesis. It is as wrong as wrong can be and is easily disproven by a casual look at the current deployment schedule.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[justa-hairyape]

If you follow Occam's Razor, the more prosaic and realistic reasons have to do with logistics and political factors (i.e.: getting troops in place and lining up allies, something that wasn't in place last summer) appear far more reasonable.

Occam's Razor is a concept developed by a hairless ape living in a complex universe.

The only people who have had their feet on the brakes have been the folks at State,

Russia. Which has otherwise been with Bush. Remember Putin and Bush riding in his truck together ? Russia's current stance is even more odd since it just banned the mere existance of some Islamic Organizations within Russia. I wonder if they got UN approval to do that ?

The rest of the "in the know" crowd, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, have all been full speed ahead on the entire issue.

That the Bush Team, minus of course Powell who was recently still looking for an exile golden parachute for Saddam.

It is as wrong as wrong can be and is easily disproven by a casual look at the current deployment schedule.

Okay. It appears to be close to a full moon. Next new moon is in about two weeks. We began the air war in gulf war 1 on a new moon. Of course to me this is 'deja vu all over again'. Been looking at the moon since prior to mid-term elections.

[section9]

Okay. It appears to be close to a full moon. Next new moon is in about two weeks. We began the air war in gulf war 1 on a new moon. Of course to me this is 'deja vu all over again'. Been looking at the moon since prior to mid-term elections.

Well, thing is, unless the 101st already has a lot of prepositioned equipment in the Gulf (which I suspect might be the case), then we won't be going until the Ides of March or thereabouts. So I'm betting on March 10th-15th.

Which misses the new moon mark, but otoh, allows us to do a full court blitz with everything we have.

Funny thing about the Russians. They must be holding out for something else.

Be Seeing You,

Chris