Posted on 09/03/2002 10:22:21 AM PDT by My Favorite Headache
A question that was just posed to Donald Rumsfeld from one of the pool reporter's there at the Pentagon was "What proof do you have that Saddam is developing or has nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction?"
Rumsfeld-"That case will be made in the next couple of days and weeks for everyone to see"
Now between this comment that he just said and what Tony Blair said this morning....does it appear to all of you that game is on in the coming weeks for real?
Actually, I was thinking about temperature, and the fact that our guys would be wrapped up in chemsuits -- and needing them, in all likelihood.
But as I noted above, I think the real push here is to convince the Iraqis to do something about Saddam.
The lesson of 9/11 is that any regime that supports these terrorists, or itself is a terrorist regime, has a tangible means and opportunity to attack us.
So I have to ask: if Saddam's agents released a bio device in downtown LA, or nuked Tel Aviv, what would that do to your conscience? I, for one, could not live with myself if I had the ability to stop such a thing ahead of time, which we do.
I'm starting to think that they're going to focus on nuclear weapons. What will make this "unique" is that we'll be talking about relatively small nuclear bombs, delivered covertly, instead of large warheads on missiles. As we've discussed, these differences make deterrence based on MAD inapplicable, and preemption becomes the only option.
This will be convincing, just as Blair promises.
I think the anthrax threat we've discussed is real. I'm just thinking that they may choose to talk instead about the (also real) nuclear threat, since that's more likely to coalesce public opinion in favor of military action. [There's also still the possibility that Iraq will be publicly tied to 9/11.]
LOL, my sentiments exactly.
North Korea and Pakistan have them. Lybia might be about to. Those regimes aren't exactly stable. They dang sure don't love Americans. Is Iraq just #1 on a list? Are we Americans ready to scour the earth of despotic regimes that have...or are about to have WMD? Is this our purpose? Are we ready to carry the load and pay the price? These are valid questions. This might be a slippery slope. e
First of all, Iraq has a recent history of using WMD. Second, we fought Iraq ten years ago and they haven't been in compliance with the cease fire agreement for years. Third, and most importantly, your argument is a very old and tired one. Many people often use excuses in order to avoid doing something that is necessary. Are there others who need to be dealt with? Yes. Can we take on everyone at one time? No. You have to pick your battles? The real important question for you is if we decided to go after all of the countries you just named would you support the action? The answer is an obvious no. You are simply using this argument to support your viewpoint that we should not go to war.
You must be referring to the gassing of the Kurds. That wasn't recent. It was over a decade ago. And guess who was supplying Saddam with his WMD. Also, Saddam was in a civil war against the Kurds. I thought he went over the line however. And that was enough reason for us to take him out back in the Gulf war.
"Second, we fought Iraq ten years ago and they haven't been in compliance with the cease fire agreement for years."
So ten years ago, Saddam had gassed Kurds and invaded Kuwait. And we didn't take him out then. And for the last 10 years, he's gassed no one...and invaded no one....and now it's time to take him out? You mean you don't see a disconnect here? I'm sure he is persuing WMD.....but like I said...aren't many other countries doing the same? As for the compliance issue, I think thats a weak excuse. However, I'm sure it is a legally valid one.
" Third, and most importantly, your argument is a very old and tired one. Many people often use excuses in order to avoid doing something that is necessary. Are there others who need to be dealt with? Yes. Can we take on everyone at one time? No. You have to pick your battles? The real important question for you is if we decided to go after all of the countries you just named would you support the action? The answer is an obvious no. You are simply using this argument to support your viewpoint that we should not go to war."
My argument may be tired...but it is still valid. I believe Saddam is one bad dude. I think he is a potential threat to his region. I think he may even have agents involved in terrorism....in our country. He may have his finger on OKC and other terrorist events in America. I just want our President to explain to America why now is the time to take this guy out. Maybe he is about to do this. But up til now, nothing. I want him to explain why it wasn't OK to get rid of Saddam a decade ago when his use of WMD was a "recent" event...and he had just invaded another country. But now, after a decade of relatively good behavior on the part of Saddam, it is time to get him. And now, when the stakes are so much higher. Saddam has had ten years to develop or aquire serious WMD. And although I'm not to worried about a direct attack on America, I'm very fearful for Israel. Israel could be severely injured. And that would surely result in an escalation of war that would ignite the Middle East and the world. I'm sure that you...and me...and the rest of America want this war on terrorism won. However, if ever there was a time to be prudent, it has to be now. If our President lays out how Saddam was really the one behind 911, then I say lets roll. If he shows that Saddam was behind OKC then that may be justification. But I'm not ready to risk WW3 just because he kicked out the UN inspectors. Especially when it will be America paying for it in dollars and blood. And the rest of the world will accuse us of being the bullies. If Bush has the goods on Saddam....then let's do it. But I still wonder why we didn't do it when we had the chance. Why is it differnet now. 130 posted on 9/5/02 6:38 PM Pacific by ItisaReligionofPeace
If it weren't for LBJ, WJC would be our worst president.
That's fairly obvious -- it would be foolish not to try for the option that solves the problem at no real cost to us, if there's any hope that it might succeed and the attempt won't foreclose the use of other options if it doesn't.
Although there are lots of candidates for that dubious honor I give it to LBJ as well.
I think the headline is misleading. The article implies the headline should read "All government agencies to prepare, by November 1st, for war."
The difference between those two statements is not small.
I guess I'll never trust our power elite.
If you read The New Dealers' War by Thomas Fleming, I guarantee you'll see it that way.Fleming is a Truman Democrat, as he told Brian Lamb on C-Span. But his book makes the case that a huge leak nominally against FDR just before Pearl Harbor was actually an FDR plant to embarass the Isolationists. He says that before Pearl Harbor Americans were 80% united in opposition to fighting Germany (and if you reflect on the fact that Nevile Chamberlain's appeasement was popular in Britain until Hitler and Stalin started WWII, that has to be a believable statistic).
So as is widely known now (e.g., the movie Tora, Tora, Tora!)--but was Top Secret throughout WWII--Roosevelt was briefed by Naval Intelligence that Japan would break diplomatic relations with Washington on Dec 7 about a week beforehand.
A huge broughaha was raised on Dec 4 when a hostile Chicago paper printed the Roosevelt War Department's plan to raise a huge army and fight Germany and Japan. So the isolationists were raising all-out heck on December 7, 1941. Right when the bombs started falling on Pearl Harbor! So we know, as the public during WWII did not, that FDR had the motive and opportunity to make that leak, at just the right time. The author credits that leak with motivating Hitler to declare war on the United States (note that he waited a week to do it; he wasn't treaty obligated to do so, and he had not wanted to do so).
The joker being, that FDR seems to have acquired the overpowering urge to get into war with Germany on or about June 22, 1941 (when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union). He tried to get the public agitated over German U-boats in the Atlantic, but since that didn't take so he pushed Japan into a corner, and things worked just the way he hoped. Japan attacked, and Germany declared war. Perfect!! Not too good if you were on a battleship in Pearl Harbor (and if the Navy hadn't been overruled by Roosevelt they wouldn't have been there), and not if you were one of the 20,000 Americans in the Philipines--but good enough to get Lend-Lease supplies headed to the USSR.
Actually, it wasn't especially good for the owners and crew of the 397 (!) merchantmen that were sunk of the east coast of the US by June 1942, either . . . but then, that number was secret--just like the U-boat loss total of zero during that time.
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.