New weapons in Iraq... Tic.. Toc.. Tic.. Toc....

[VectorBoy 0]

My guess would be 50=50. But I will admit to being very right of center on this one.


Nigel I completely agree with EVERYTHING you said brother. And I'm all too familiar with that. Our real threat during the cold war in europe wasn't allways the soviets but small factions from any number of terrorist cells. We delt with this on a personal level. The PLO might have been getting somewhere with its investments, influence, politics, change a view, change a vote, change life in a region, slowly, positively.
But since Al queda getting their way would be killing the great white devil, oh and that would be
me, I have a better idea. Glen

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

North Korea is going to get nuked..

I truely also believe they are going to jumpstart a small scale type of cold war, or worse and Bill will get his wish of some kind of military action against N Korea. Glen

[VectorBoy 0]

I don't agree completely, Our campaign in afghanistan hasn't slowed them down, disrupted the same ol, same ol ya think? Gotten other not so radical muslims also looking out for the bad thugs?

< War may be necessary, but don't kid yourself that it will stop terrorism in the US

And I don't. Their big wet dream for 30 years has been to bring it here. And they gave it a 100% effort! Brilliant right out of left field, nobody saw it coming. You can't stop or prepare defend against this sort of thing. Ask any operator, its just a game you pick the time and the place if nobody shows to play against you win.

< Perhaps war is necessary, and we have to accept the increase in terrorism. Accept that BEFORE we go to war, and realize that the price you pay for the war won't just be military lives - it might be very close to home.

And you would have the free world do what? nothing?
So the next time something "brilliant " goes down and we get caught sitting around confiscating each others fingernail clippers at the greyhound terminal are you going to ask why my government couldn't have foreseen this and protected from this ? Glen

[billvon 3,008]

>The problem we're going to run into is that we don't know every WMD
> that Hussein has. If/when we lay out everything he must do to avoid
>war he will do exactly that and only that.

That's right. That will not eliminate the risk, but it will reduce the risk. If there is a path to where we can reduce the risk Iraq poses we should pursue it. If we do have to invade afterwards, we have reduced the risk to our own troops and the rest of the world. Think Israel will fare a little better if we can get him to trash half his Al-Samouds before we invade?

>The links to Al Qaida are tenuous and probably don't exist anymore.
> But, he is linked to terrorists.

Agreed.

>The belief that attacks on Iraq will increase terrorism is coming from
> the same people who spouted the same rhetoric before we entered
>Afghanistan.

You're accusing the CIA of spouting meaningless rhetoric and using scare tactics? If that's the case, when _do_ you believe them, and on which topics?

>It would be best if we got another UN resolution.

I agree; I think it's critical.

>We have to hold out the right to defend our country without UN
>approval.

I also agree, and if we were facing an imminent threat, there would be no question. But Hussein has been pulling this stuff for 20 YEARS. He's shown that he hates anyone who foils his plans, and will support anyone (including European nations and the US) who advance his plans. He's hardly an immediate threat. That doesn't mean we can ignore him, but it also means we don't have to attack by Monday or risk cataclysm.

> Hussein has us in his crosshairs . . .

And when he pulls the trigger, what evil weapon of mass destruction will come winging towards the US? He has far less to threaten us with than Iran or North Korea, and no motive to attack. He is the despot of a rather backward war-ravaged country, and we have to deal with him. That does not equate to "we have to kill 100,000 Iraqis by next Friday."

>He has a picture of Bush Sr on the floor of his palace entry way just to
> show disrespect to him.

And our news media has logos showing Hussein in a rifle crosshairs. No love is lost either way.

>This isn't a passing phase he is going through. We pissed him off
>before the Gulf War and he is holding a grudge.

Oh, he hates a lot of people - Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs - a lot more than he hates us. He is far too opportunistic to hold grudges, and if he could figure out a way to use us to advance his cause, he would. And if that use required him to smile and shake hands with Rumsfeld, he'd do that too. In fact, he did just that, about 20 years ago.

[billvon 3,008]

>And I don't. Their big wet dream for 30 years has been to bring it here.
>And they gave it a 100% effort! Brilliant right out of left field, nobody
>saw it coming.

Uh, Tom Clancy wrote a novel about a terrorist crashing a 747 into Congress way before 9/11. We knew in 1995 that Ramzi Yousef had plans to fly airliners into buildings in the US, although he planned to use 11 aircraft and take explosives on board. In 1974 a man tried to hijack an airliner and fly it into the White House, and in 1994 Algerian terrorists tried to hijack an airliner and fly it into the Eiffel Tower. (I know, that's in France so it would have been funny.) It was far from a suprise.

And brilliant? It was about as simple a plan you can imagine. Barely-trained pilots with boxcutters, who could be foiled by unarmed passengers who banded together. We are lucky there are no truly brilliant terrorists out there; the damage they could do boggles the mind. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't give some examples.

> And you would have the free world do what? nothing?

No, disarm Iraq and keep it disarmed. There are solutions between "do nothing" and "kill 100,000 Iraqis." Did it take a war with Cuba to neutralize their threat, for example? Was the only solution to the Cuban crisis Castro's death?

>So the next time something "brilliant " goes down and we get caught
>sitting around confiscating each others fingernail clippers at the
>greyhound terminal are you going to ask why my government
>couldn't have foreseen this and protected from this?

Nope. Indeed, if the next terrorist is as brilliant as you think he might be, you or I may not be around to ask those questions. Even if we survive we may well not be able to ask them on a functioning internet. I hope to avoid that day, rather than hasten it by making the US the most hated country, and the greatest percieved threat to world peace, on the planet. A unilateral war will help do that.

[VectorBoy 0]

[ in 1994 Algerian terrorists tried to hijack an airliner and fly it into the Eiffel Tower. (I know, that's in France so it would have been funny.) It was far from a suprise.

Don't you like the french Bill?

And brilliant? It was about as simple a plan you can imagine. Barely-trained pilots with boxcutters, who could be foiled by unarmed passengers who banded together.

Probably won't happen again at least not like that.


No, disarm Iraq and keep it disarmed.

How? Ask nice?

Did it take a war with Cuba to neutralize their threat,
Some people thought we got pretty close no?

Glen

[rhino 0]

I heard on the radio that the UN inspectors were pulled out yesterday? Is that true?

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

Hi, Kallend...

Agreeing with Kmcguffee in toto, and adding my own thought...

Quote

The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country

From someone in the Foreign service, I would not expect this sort of commentary...the phrase "baggage" denotes, in pop-psych, something you don't want to have, carry around with you, and wish yourself rid of.

It would seem he did just that...
Ciels-
Michele

How about addressing the points he made, rather than attacking his personality?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

Quote

He answers your question better than I can.

That answer would be "I quit because I don't agree with the current administration". Very eloquent but hardly answers any questions. Instead of staying in and fighting for what he believes in he just quit.

The current administration doesn't tolerate dissent. You have no idea whether or not he fought, and for how long, before quitting. Cheap shot.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhino 0]

Didn't look to me like she attacked his personality at all..

[flyingferret 0]

New Drone Shown

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/middleeast/13DRON.html?ex=1048136400&en=e7900e97add97ced&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Just my opinion, but this looks like a total case of showing the earliest prototype. Furthermore, although the New York Times refers to it as "more like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of aeronautical design than anything that could threaten Iraq's foes" I know several RC enthusiasts that would be pretty impressed. You don't have to be that high tech to distribute agents. As a matter of fact, I would bet it could be done with amatuer model rocket payloads. Anyway, read the article and form your own opinion.

But...anyway you cut it is just another think that inadvertantly, accidentally, due to 'type-o' and miscommunication was not relayed to the UN.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I heard on the radio that the UN inspectors were pulled out yesterday? Is that true?"

Can't see anything about this on my usual sources....
However, why keep em in there? I mean, what's the point now?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

That's right. That will not eliminate the risk, but it will reduce the risk. If there is a path to where we can reduce the risk Iraq poses we should pursue it

Except when that path leads to a dead end with no where to go. Once he does everything we ask we have no other course of action unless we can find additional WMDs (probably after it is detonated against US targets).

Quote

You're accusing the CIA of spouting meaningless rhetoric and using scare tactics? If that's the case, when _do_ you believe them, and on which topics?

Nope, I didn't say that. I said they are making sure that their ass is covered in case there is an attack after any conflict with Iraq. The intel is out there that some groups will try to coincide a terrorist attack with any conflict with Iraq. But, it isn't any worse than what was received before we attacked Afghanistan.

Quote

He's hardly an immediate threat. That doesn't mean we can ignore him, but it also means we don't have to attack by Monday or risk cataclysm.

The only way to get him to do anything is to make him believe he risks imminent "cataclysm". Eventually, we have to make good on the threats or they lose their effectiveness.

Quote

And our news media has logos showing Hussein in a rifle crosshairs. No love is lost either way.

There is a little difference between the media and the government. Because it happens here too doesn't reduce the threat.

Quote

And when he pulls the trigger, what evil weapon of mass destruction will come winging towards the US?

The means are numerous. I'll go into them when I have more time.

Quote

Oh, he hates a lot of people - Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs - a lot more than he hates us. He is far too opportunistic to hold grudges, and if he could figure out a way to use us to advance his cause, he would. And if that use required him to smile and shake hands with Rumsfeld, he'd do that too. In fact, he did just that, about 20 years ago.

I'm not sure how you are able to get into Hussein's head to come to this conclusion. It is really irrelevant.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[rhino 0]

I must admit....

This drone isn't necessarily a military thing. They have a right to survey their country just like we have a right to survey ours.

Because of the position they are in it is assumed that it is for delivering WMD's..

They need to give it a break already..

Rhino

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Except when that path leads to a dead end with no where to go. Once he does everything we ask we have no other course of action unless we can find additional WMDs (probably after it is detonated against US targets).

Ok...so supposing we get him to do everything we ask, why would we need another course of action?

[nigel99 507]

according to the BBC this morning UN were pulling out various support staff - oil for food, and the UN no fly zone enforcement guys but not the inspectors.

The comment was that it would be anticipated that if the inspectors were pulled bombing would be close on their heels - but that they hadn't been pulled yet.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

New Drone Shown

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/
international/middleeast/13DRON.html?ex=1048136400&en=e7900e97add97ced&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Just my opinion, but this looks like a total case of showing the earliest prototype. Furthermore,
although the New York Times refers to it as "more
like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of
aeronautical design than anything that could threaten
Iraq's foes" I know several RC enthusiasts that would
be pretty impressed. You don't have to be that high
tech to distribute agents. As a matter of fact, I would
bet it could be done with amatuer model rocket
payloads. Anyway, read the article and form your own
opinion.


But...anyway you cut it is just another think that

inadvertantly, accidentally, due to 'type-o' and
miscommunication was not relayed to the UN.

I have R/C planes in my workshop that look more capable of mass destruction!

I also have some fairly big and controllable rockets too! www.iit.edu/~kallend/rock.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhino 0]

3 weeks ago there were over 140 inspectors in Iraq.. Not that number is around 65..

hmmmm???

[Michele 1]

Quote

How about addressing the points he made, rather than attacking his personality?

The points he made were based on a comment about baggage, and his feelings about service in general. As he wrote the letter beginning with baggage, I figured the rest of it was simply baggage, as well....when he brought in commentary about the Romanovs, and began to chastise Colin Powell, I got really clear that his "baggage" was his personal inability to agree with the current administration.

Therefore, because he brought nothing new to the mix, and because I couldn't find even a bio of him on the web (which may be because of my search skills rather than it not existing...) and thus couldn't find any information as to what position he actually resigned from, there wasn't anything else to say other than it seems he handled his problem the way he chose for himself...for his reasons, and for his own self-satisfaction.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[flyingferret 0]

I actually agree with you. So why hide them? They are inducing their own suspicion.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[nigel99 507]

it seems that there is no real record on BBC website of the remark I reffered to.

However the UK parliament was promised that if feasible a vote prior to war starting in Iraq would be held... so take note about 3/4 of the way down this article on bbc's website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2845867.stm

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[billvon 3,008]

>Don't you like the french Bill?

I like em just fine, but lately around here french jokes are funny whereas jokes about americans and christians are not. Just trying to follow the trend.

>Probably won't happen again at least not like that.

Yep, although I think the next sort of attack like that, if it's attempted, will be stopped by the Todd Beamers of the world and not the TSA agents at our airports. I think that's a stronger deterrent than our new security.

>>No, disarm Iraq and keep it disarmed.

>How? Ask nice?

Force them to do it. Use all our intelligence resources, find the weapons, and demand they be destroyed by X date. If they don't do that, send in troops with the inspectors to ensure their destruction. If they resist, then it's war time.

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

I actually agree with you. So why hide them? They are inducing their own suspicion.

Some questions just have no answers. For example, I'd like to know what GWB is hiding about his father's administration that led to his executive order preventing release of records under FOI, but I doubt anyone will tell me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,008]

>Except when that path leads to a dead end with no where to go.

Once it dead ends, and we can't break the stalemate, then we go to war. Until then, we keep whittling him down. This might lead to his complete disarmament (unlikely.) It will most certainly lead to a partial disarmament, and this makes him both less a threat to the world in peacetime and less a threat to our troops when we invade.

>The intel is out there that some groups will try to coincide a
>terrorist attack with any conflict with Iraq.

I agree. I think it's a little more than meaningless scare tactics; the threat of terrorism is quite real. We learned that on 9/11.

>The only way to get him to do anything is to make him believe he
>risks imminent "cataclysm".

I also agree there, which is why I support a UN resolution that puts a date on that cataclysm.

"Oh, he hates a lot of people - Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs - a lot more than he hates us. He is far too opportunistic to hold grudges, and if he could figure out a way to use us to advance his cause, he would. And if that use required him to smile and shake hands with Rumsfeld, he'd do that too. In fact, he did just that, about 20 years ago."

>I'm not sure how you are able to get into Hussein's head to come to
> this conclusion. It is really irrelevant.

Unlike Rhino, I believe that history means something. If a man robs a liquor store 20 times, he's a risk to rob it a 21st time. The things I listed above are not my predictions, they have happened. He DID cozy up to the US when it was in his best interest to do so. He HAS tried to destroy Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, and he has not tried to destroy us yet - because the response is not something he wants, which is his death and destruction of his country. He's proven that by his actions.

He is a despot, but one who is a master at retaining power and playing people to his advantage. I'd recommend Pollack's book for some history on this. He will do whatever it takes to remain in power, even if that means pretending to cooperate with international inspectors. That gives us an opportunity (a slim one, but one nonetheless) to force his disarmament. If not, at least we have weakened him, and that means fewer dead American soldiers. That's a good thing.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Don't you like the french Bill?

i like them to! with red wine, and a-1 sauce. J/K

Quote

Force them to do it. Use all our intelligence resources, find the weapons, and demand they be destroyed by X date. If they don't do that, send in troops with the inspectors to ensure their destruction. If they resist, then it's war time.

i agree with this protocol. not that it makes any difference in the grand scheme of things.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"