Anti War Movement

And USE? Ya think?

I'd asked for links on another thread and am still interested in seeing the parts where he alledgedly reprimanded a subordinate and said that he shouldn't disagree with Iraqis.

Does Russia approve the use of these weapons? If that's the question, I really don't know, but Saddam has previously shown a willingness to use those at his command. Unless he has had some incredible change of heart, it is a reasonable assumption that that is his intent.

I don't recall alleging that Blix reprimanded a subordinate over anything, and didn't mean to give that impression. It does not sound completely unfamiliar, but I'm not making that claim.

Yup, it was Tantor, he said it was in Friday's Washington Post. I missed it but am too lazy to look.

I don't think the nations who flinched at our plans for Iraq did so out of the desire to keep Sadaam armed so much as to avoid letting us decide on those type of things by ourselves.

If they do have an agenda I'd say it's their money and not a desire to sheild Sadaam.

I've long said, though not quite from the beginning, that this is not something for us to either decide or do, entirely on our own - for pragmatic and political reasons.

Of course it's about their money. Possibly a valid reason from the Russian standpoint, but maybe shortsighted from France's.

Ín France's case I think it is less money and more the precedent (not really a precedent but still, they don't want this to become a habit).

Sorry I got off on that track -- Craven is right that it is not within this forum's parameters to attack someone's education or anything else about them when one really hasn't enough information to really know about another person on the forum. I just suppose that "fabulizing" is some new form of dry cleaning anyway. I'll keep it on the subject from now on so to avoid being accused of being one of those horrible liberals.

I believe any anti-war film, movement, commentator, et al, should be heard and digested. On the reverse, one should keep themselves educated about the reasons and intent of any war movement. Everyone will reach their own conclusions and if their desire is to pontificate on their ideology, then let them rattle on. I don't cotton to the extremism on the left or the right but haven't developed any paranoia to the point that I ignore either side.

When the Gulf war was in full swing, anti-war protestors peddled the most errant crap about the whole thing. Many spouted off Sadam's crap lies about Kuwait being the "19th province" of Iraq. Inasmuch as Iraq was created in 1922 by Churchill and Balfour, and Kuwait instituted diplomatic relations with England in 1702, this was obviously nonsense. This is a case of those well-meaing people, opposed to any war for any reason, not taking the time to have educated themselves, as LW enjoins others to do. I think the Gulf War was justified. I don't think a war now would be justified. I hope i am not wrong in saying that a sincere person could support one war and not another, and be free from any taint of being a "war monger."

I agreed with the necessity of the Gulf War and the War in Bosnia as being expedient police actions with a coalition that was thoughtfully put together -- the protestors didn't have much of a leg to stand on. In the Bosnian conflict, we have a fallen dictator and unfortunately, in the Gulf War we have a perpetuated dictator.
I can't in all honesty subscribe to the effort to attack and invade Iraq based on what facts are known and I'm unwilling to swallow the effort to hide what any government says is evidence they wish to conceal for the "good of the people."

Incidentally, Hans Blix has called for any evidence of WMD from all countries who have any intelligence on the existance of these weapons to assist them in finding them.

No, that concealed evidence isn't very convincing without a good reason for keeping the secret.

I would like to revert to a statement made by Tantor to the effect that "it will be over in a month." While this may possibly happen, it will be very dangerous indeed for the military authorities in this country to take this line when making plans for a ground war in Iraq. It would be nice if significant numbers of Iraqi units simply roll-over, but it would be foolhardy in the extreme for any operational plan to be based on such an assumption. Rumsfeld has already stated (heard him again and again on several new sources): ". . . it could take five weeks, it could take five months . . ." -- so that i am somewhat relieved to believe that the Defense Department is not taking an unrealistic view.

For however long it would take, were we so unfortunate as to be lead down the primrose path by this bunch of clowns in office, i will never believe that one American, English or Iraqi life lost is justified in the current circumstances. As for the question of whether or not the Iraqis have a workable nuke--i doubt it. The Israelis took out a reactor near Baghdad in '78 because Mossad had what it considered to be reliable information that the Iraqis intended to stockpile fissionable materials. I belive that the Mossad would be howling (through the organ of official spokespersons) bloody murder if the Iraqis were anywhere near producing a functional nuke.

I have not read of anyone anywhere who said the Iraqis have a functional nuke. The position of the Bush administration is that the Iraqis are close to having one. The debatable part is how close.

Tantor

NewsMax and The NY Post have been expounding that they already have nukes but their sources are really questionable.

When I said that the war in Iraq will be over in a month I was being very conservative. I'd be surprised if it lasted that long. My guess is that it will be over in a couple weeks. The initial assault on Saddam's centers of power will be so lethal, precise, and overpowering that there won't be much fight left. The majority of Iraqis have no intention of fighting. The bulk of Saddam's core supporters have no competence in fighting. They are basically gangsters who are only tough when they have all the advantages.

It's going to be a blowout.

Tantor

Ah yes, just like Somalia, hmmmm?

I really love the use of verb tenses in that responses . . . "It's going to be a blowout." Can't wait, can ya, Boss?

Setanta,

Somalia was run by a President who loathed the military, who did not understand how to use it, and who would not equip it properly to do its job. Iraq is run by a President who knows what he is doing.

Yes, I am eager for us to invade Iraq. I believe that Saddam Hussein was the ultimate sponsor of the Sep 11 attacks and Iraqi intelligence the brains behind it. Saudi Arabia was the money and Al Qaeda was just the muscle. When our military smacks the Iraqi pinyata, many interesting secrets are going to spill out.

Iraq is probably close to owning a nuke and will doubtless put it to bad use. I don't want a mega-Sep 11 in my America.

The Middle East is a chaotic hellhole of violence that continues to spill over into the rest of the world, including America. We have had crazed Arab murderers shoot our presidential candidates, attempt to kill our past presidents, hijack our airliners, and butcher our people by the thousands. It's time we took the offensive.

Taking over Iraq is our best opportunity to turn the Middle East around. The Arabs are incapable of reforming themselves. Only America can kickstart democracy in the Arab world by creating a liberal democracy with free speech and open markets in Iraq. When we free the Iraqi people to say what they like and work to build their own futures, that will build the best peace. And the other Arabs will take note and want it for themselves.

Tantor

Out of a bemused curiosity, what makes you think that the nations you mention were behind the attacks on 9/11?

What exactly did Iraqi intelligence do? Provide maps with the locations of the WTC and Pentagon to the operatives?

freedom/democracy shoved down the throat of people can be neither freedom nor democrary. its going to be a bit difficult convincing the ones we kill that they are better off. Grenada was a showmanship theatrical episode to make Reagan feel powerful. Just my opinion, i could be wrong, i am just another socialist goofy minded liberal.

Tanton has his armor on and has a spear....and he even has a flag. Can't do anything without having a flag. Those Saudi Arabians sure were anxious to follow orders delivered by Sadam, considering their country was one of the prime reasons his country was attacked and thrown out of Kawait -- they perhaps were rightly concerned that there would be a domino effect in the Mid East if Sadam had been allowed to get away with occupying Kawait.
Where's the proof that Sadam was behind 9/11 -- are we receiving messages from some flying saucer aliens?

The first attack on the WTC in 1993 was probably an Iraqi operation. The leader of the bombing, Ramzi Yousef, was almost certainly an Iraqi agent. He is a remarkably well trained guy, with a wide knowledge of covert communications, bomb chemistry, and tradecraft. He came equipped with a false identity provided to him by Iraqi intel, that of a Pakistani who disappeared along with all his family during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He had a list of his dead alter ego's classmates from Kuwait. Laurie Mylroie makes a good case that Yousef (not his real name) was sent by Iraq in her book, "The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge".

It seems unlikely that a target that was once unsuccessfully attacked by Iraq would be targeted again by some other entity. What are the chances of such a coincidence?

One of the participants in the 1993 Iraqi attack was also a participant in the Sep 11, 2001 attack. Yousef's uncle was a money man in the support of both attacks. The two attacks are connected by him.

Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who did not offer sympathy to America on Sep 11, but openly mocked its loss. These are the kinds of head games a psycho like Saddam plays.

The Sep 11 attack was atypical for Al Qaeda. Usually, it acts like a terrorist foundation, studying proposals for terror attacks from its associates and funding those it likes. The Sep 11 attack was different. The Hamburg cell did not develop the skyjacking plan and present it to Al Qaeda. They were picked for a plan that had already been presented to Al Qaeda by another source.

Al Qaeda attackers usually have long-standing association with Al Qaeda. The Hamburg cell did not. It appears that they were picked so that they would have no association with Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda has little expertise in skyjacking. Their attacks are fairly simple-minded: drive by shootings and grenade attacks, truck bombs, boat bombs. Al Qaeda has never mounted a skyjacking before or since Sep 11. It is not the kind of attack that Al Qaeda does.

Skyjacking requires training for success. In the 1960s, the Palestinian skyjackers trained at a skyjacking school in Syria, drilling on airliners loaned by the Syrian national airline. Their skyjackings were generally well scripted and successful. By contrast, the Libyans in the 1960s who had no access to skyjacking training generally screwed up their skyjackings, tending to shoot everyone and lose control of the situation. The Sep 11 skyjackings went more like the trained Palestinian skyjackings than the unschooled Libyan ones. The only known professional skyjacking school today is in Salman Pak, Baghdad, Iraq.

The Sep 11 skyjackers were well drilled by professionals who knew their business. All four jets executed the same script, even made the same mistakes. That is the product of many repetitions. None of the skyjackers appears to have hestitated to cut the throats of passengers (all the attacks opened by one hijacker cutting the throat of a passenger seated in front of him) or cutting up the female flight attendants. Such behavior is unnatural. It can only be accomplished through training. My guess is that they practiced on animals and then humans as a graduation exercise. The planners had enough confidence in their training to attempt to take over four jets at once. That is a lot of confidence to have on your first attempt at something. Too much for amateurs.

You just don't hit a homerun out of the ballpark the first time at bat. These guys were far too professionally trained to be a product of Al Qaeda, which runs a rather amateurish operation. That expertise came from professionals. The list of organizations with this kind of professional knowledge and discipline is short. Iraq. Maybe Iran.

Iraq has a history of using amateurs in false flag terrorist operations. For example, they took over the Iranian embassy in London posing as Iranian dissidents. The SAS defeated them and captured survivors who spilled their story. The Sep 11 attack looks like a giant false flag operation.

For Saddam it would be perfect. He supplies the plan, researched by his intel people. His pilots supply all the information about what airliners to pick, what training to get, where to get it. His architects tell him its possible to knock the buildings by delivering enough fire to their midsections. Best of all, Saddam, who wants to keep his role secret, has a perfect patsy in Osama Bin Laden, a murderous dope who loves to grandstand in public. Bin Laden is all too happy to take all the credit for a plan that was handed to him. Saddam is happy to let him take the blame.

It's mostly theory with a few facts to support it. After Iraq goes down, we may know for sure. My guess is that there will be participants in the plotting who, relieved of threat from Saddam, will be happy to trade the story for a good deal from the occupying forces of the US.

Tantor