Posted on 05/19/2003 9:49:46 AM PDT by Nonstatist
The argument to the contrary is no different in principle from the arguments against taking action against the Taliban prior to 9/11, with the only difference being that Iraq under Saddam was far more dangerous than the Taliban on its worst day. We should have learned our lesson the first time around.
As for WMD's - Syria has a more advanced program, Iran has a more advanced program. I would wager Pakistan has a more advanced program. And North Korea says they have nukes but might even sell them and tells us to go fry ice! Iraq was no real or immediate threat to us. Sadaam would have loved to be our best friend again. Iraq's WMD's was the excuse to establish a beach head in the war against terrorism.
LOL. You're probably right. I was just challenging liberallarry to back up his comments with some facts. I remember some state department folks checking it in but I don't think I heard of ANY intelligence folks doing the same, especially not as a "protest of administration actions."
But you're right . . . if there is some who did you can bet they're lefties.
The Taliban protected Al Queada prior to 9/11, too. The reason we didn't attack the Taliban prior to 9/11 was because we concluded, wrongly, that it wasn't a threat to us. Fortunately, having learned our lesson the hard way, we didn't repeat this mistake with respect to Iraq.
As for the degree of the threat, I would agree that there are other threats of varying degrees. Indeed, one reason for taking action against Iraq now rather than later was to prevent Iraq from becoming the next North Korea. I don't see how allowing Saddam to proceed with his WMD program (even to the point of acquiring nuclear weapons) makes the United States a safer place rather than a more dangerous place. Put another way, you don't cure a smaller malignant tumor like Iraq by allowing it to grow into an even bigger malignant tumor. You cure it by removing it while you can.
Two possible scenarios:
1. Saddam was still cleaning house when the attack came.
2. Saddam was playing tough-guy to the Arab world, figuring we'd never attack.
Either way, he fought the Law, and the Law won.
That is sophistry. What is your argument? That because we failed to see the threat of 9/11 from the AQ forces residing in the Afghan Taliban regime that we are now, somehow, empowered to destroy any percieved threat anywhere at anytime on the Globe? That is precisely what scares the world about the USA. And what is driving us into over extension and creating more terrorists.
We were attacked on 9/11 - not with WMD's (a Threat I lived under most of my entire life and so did my parents from madmen like Stalin and Kruschev and Brezhnev and Mao) but with box cutters! With box cutters.
I can't. This was a bit of information I picked up from a casual reading of gcochran's posts. Too casual it turns out.
He was one of the most informed guys to post to this forum in my opinion. Unfortunately, he got himself banned so I can't seach his stuff.
Too bad. Sorry.
Incidentally, we were indeed attacked on 9/11 with WMDs, not in the form of box cutters, but in the form of Boeing 767 jets loaded with jet fuel.
I just hope we find WMD's and don't become the bad boy of the world.
I also hope that we find these WMDs, if they still exist to be found. However, it may very well be the case that these WMDs were destroyed or hidden just before the war began (or, for that matter, during the war as well). We certainly need to get to the bottom of what happened to these weapons (a process that may take months) so that to the extent they still exist we can account for them, track them down, secure them, and thereby keep them out of the hands of the wrong people.
But it would have been so easy to give them to the wrong people just out of spite? Is that wrong to assume? Are we safer?
Yes, I think so. Saddam could have given WMDs to the wrong people at any time. Or one of his sons could have done so, or many of the other psychopaths who ran that regime could have done so. Now many of these psychopaths are dead, and many others are no longer in any position to cause us harm. The threat isn't totally eliminated, but I think it's fair to say that the threat is certainly reduced to a much lower level than it used to be.
Did Sadaam launch commando invasions into India to capture movie stars he had a crush on? Not one time but many times? Did Sadaam send in Commandos to Kuwait to scout out his future "landing zones" only to have all of his commandos kill themselves? Did Sadaam launch intermediate range ballistic missle tests over Turkey not once but several times? Did Sadaam have a diesel powered submarine come up on shore of Kuwait? Did Sadaam take food supplies from us and promise us compliance with "UN Regulators"? Did Sadaam fight a naval battle with an American ally in which we said nothing?
The Answer is no in all cases- but yes if you replace Iraq for North Korea.
The lesson learned from Gulf War II is that if you don't have WMD's or nukes- get them fast or America will invade.
C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports
White House Pressures CIA Analysts To Help Build Case Against Saddam
Not much, I know. There's always tension between policy makers and intelligence people, especially in tough times.
Still, I trusted gcochran's judgement and sources. Too bad he's not around to speak for himself. I can't vouch for the accuracy of my memory or interpretation of his remarks.
Or that you should stop messing with the United States.
If you ask me, those "intelligence personnel" you refer to are Clinton holdovers; you know, the ones who emasculated our intelligence capabilities and turned the CIA into the DOS Lite?
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.