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
'....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.