Yeah, that war was looking pretty hopeless, when Poppy called it off.
Posted on 02/11/2003 12:20:13 AM PST by JustPiper
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:40:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Trying to prevent contaminated outside air from entering your home is rather pointless without shutting off the heating/cooling and suffering the consequences.
But now Saddam has brought what saved him in Baghdad, home to our country. Meanwhile, Israel was developing a working missile defense program. What was Clintoon and the Progressive Twits doing ? Slashing and cutting our military.
Al Gore, but the Electorial College design saved us.
And I have to admit, you have been correct so far in your prediction of no full scale military action against Saddam. However, the troops are assembling and every theory is correct until eventually proven incorrect. Do you think troops will be sent without at least some of Iraq's anthrax being nullified ? Or are we waiting for proper conditioning, proper drug stockpiling and proper innoculating ?
Well I did that stuff too Friday, but no tape yet, hope we get it in time. Being in the city of Chicago, I feel I am in a safe environment where I live, but who knows.
I'm still a little hazy here, bear with me. What I don't understand is, if President Bush has no intention of actually attacking Iraq, why all the sabre-rattling NOW? Do you think he thought maybe he could bluff Saddam into actually cooperating with weapons inspectors? And if Saddam indeed has the WMD trump card, and Bush knows it, then what would give him the idea that such a bluff was likely to succeed?
Personally, I hope we do attack, and soon. Only because I believe that the WMD threat is not likely to go away on its own, and we might as well act while we've got someone in the White House who is willing to do something about it. As popular as the President is now, he could still lose in 2004, meaning unless we get a sensible Dem in the White House, it would be until at least January 2009 before revisiting the issue.
If attacking Iraq means sacrificing lives here at home, including potentially my loved ones or even myself, I think it's inevitable. And acting now will probably SAVE countless lives down the road. Plus, it would mitigate the deterrent value of WMDs, as other counties would see that we're willing to absorb those losses for the greater good of destroying their regimes.
I hope very much that the WMD threat is overblown. I have a feeling we're going to find out, and soon.
This stuff is all recycled from the anthrax hysteria stories from 17 months ago.
I'm not sure which thread you are talking about, but if you click on my profile, I have a bunch of links to what I consider helpful background reading for understanding the real situation in the world, post 9/11. Basically, I believe that Bush has always known that 9/11 was an Iraqi strike against the US, that the anthrax threats which started a few days after 9/11 were Saddam's warning to Bush not to point the finger and go after him, that the threat is credible and dreadful, and that everything that the administration has done since has been conditioned by this state of affairs.
Oh please. Saddam is a cunning and clever fellow to have remained alive, in power and in possession of WMD. But he is hardly the great strategist and global svengali you imagine. Conisder, as even Bush I officials readily admit, that with a bit of finesse (agreeing not to invade Saudi Arabia and a few other compromises) he could have held on to Kuwait.
The claim that al-Qaeda has no separate reality is absurd. (I certainly agree that are coordinating with Saddam, and have most probably done so in the past.)
Chemical or biological WMD would be air born and flow with the wind, minimizing one's exposure and the need for extended sealed shelter.
I suggest you get a RX from your Dr. for cipro and keep close by, and also check for the closest routes to local medical facilities, (I am 1.3 mi. to local hospital).
It is a delicate question. I do not believe we will be confronting Saddam head-on any time soon. There are things we could do militarily that would leave him with something to play for. For example, we could relatively easily dismantle Iraq, seizing the territory under the North and South No-Fly zones. That would still leave the central strip of the country, which includes Baghdad, as a rump for Saddam to play for. If and when we move, I'm convinced that the strategy will be "outside-in," as in Afghanistan, whatever propagandistic leaks to the contrary you might read. But I still think it's most likely that the current round of brinksmanship will end with some kind of elevated inspections regime rather than an invasion. That may even be secretly coordinated with France, Germany and Russia. I find it especially intersting that Russia seems to be on board with France and Germany. It's true that Russia is a traditional ally of Iraq, and that all these countries have every reason to be afraid of Iraq's WMD. But I haven't seen any anger at Putin from Bush. That suggests to me that a lot of what is going on between the US and its erratic allies is theater. The stakes are very high here. The United States cannot afford to look weak even if, in the current situation, Saddam has us by the balls. 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.
It was a long ways to a hospital and we didn't think he would make it.
Later his doctor told me he probably would have died if a friend and I hadn't used a bottle jerked off a cutting torch to feed oxygen to him on the way to town.
Just an old memory you brought to mind that might be handy for someone else.
Yeah, that war was looking pretty hopeless, when Poppy called it off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.