AFboard - View Single Post - O/T War (posted 04-01-03)

Fukkenshredded · 04-02-2003, 07:37 AM

Its interesting how everone keeps demanding more solid physical evidence of the weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam keeps his intelligence on a need to know basis. We have intelligence officers in Iraq, who are presumably unknown to Saddam. Some of them know of the whereabouts of these weapons.

Now, if we publicly announce specific caches, Saddam knows who the only possible sources of that info would be, and presto, those guys die.

Ulter is right about the simplicity of the position of aggression. You harbor terrorists, you either expel them all and disarm, or become a military target.

Simple.

Interesting all the criticism about how we were supposed to connect the dots and avooid 9/11.

Imagine if on 9/10 we would have arrested nineteen Saudis and claimed they intended to commit these acts.

You think you are seeing protests now...

So we have connected some dots and are disarming the threat, as well as demonstrating to the world that there are CONSEQUENCES for funding anti American terrorism.

Also, this idea that more time should have been given to the inspectors is ludicrous. Knowing that Saddam has several thousand liters of, say, Anthrax (and other more virulent chem/bios), and given that he has the capability to produce more, all he needed to do was string out the inspections long enough to double his stash. then, in a grand gesture of capitulation, he would simply offer up the initial stash for public destruction, as well as his facility.

Nobody would be able to prove the existence of a newly produced stash.

So more time would have been disastrous. So we moved on this.
I, for one, am of the opinion that it is about time.

The comparison to Vietnam is absurd hyperbole, to put it mildly. There is no comparison. None. Those who are trying to draw one don't understand military action, its purpose, our history, or this war.

The nature of war is not the salient point. People die? Yes they do. Civilians? Yep. The idea is that the casualties of war are less than the casualties of inaction. In this case, that litmus test is certainly passed.

The freeing of the Iraqi people is not the central reason for initiating aggression, but it certainly makes a nice adjunct. Alone, it is a fairly compelling reason to consider aggression (although entering on that basis alone is problematic). So consider it a bonus.

Our way of life is so taken for granted it is sickening. Look what these guys did with four airplanes. What could they do with actual weaponry and funding, once it became totally organized?

The opponents to this war have yet to produce any significant reasoning for lack of action. You don't like war? Niether do I. I like the idea of nations supporting those who would plot our ruin even less. Especially if they become armed.

[This message was edited by Fukkenshredded on 04-02-2003 at 10:19 AM.]

04-02-2003, 07:37 AM	#10 (permalink)
Fukkenshredded Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 1,036 Rep Power: 13711	Its interesting how everone keeps demanding more solid physical evidence of the weapons of mass destruction. Saddam keeps his intelligence on a need to know basis. We have intelligence officers in Iraq, who are presumably unknown to Saddam. Some of them know of the whereabouts of these weapons. Now, if we publicly announce specific caches, Saddam knows who the only possible sources of that info would be, and presto, those guys die. Ulter is right about the simplicity of the position of aggression. You harbor terrorists, you either expel them all and disarm, or become a military target. Simple. Interesting all the criticism about how we were supposed to connect the dots and avooid 9/11. Imagine if on 9/10 we would have arrested nineteen Saudis and claimed they intended to commit these acts. You think you are seeing protests now... So we have connected some dots and are disarming the threat, as well as demonstrating to the world that there are CONSEQUENCES for funding anti American terrorism. Also, this idea that more time should have been given to the inspectors is ludicrous. Knowing that Saddam has several thousand liters of, say, Anthrax (and other more virulent chem/bios), and given that he has the capability to produce more, all he needed to do was string out the inspections long enough to double his stash. then, in a grand gesture of capitulation, he would simply offer up the initial stash for public destruction, as well as his facility. Nobody would be able to prove the existence of a newly produced stash. So more time would have been disastrous. So we moved on this. I, for one, am of the opinion that it is about time. The comparison to Vietnam is absurd hyperbole, to put it mildly. There is no comparison. None. Those who are trying to draw one don't understand military action, its purpose, our history, or this war. The nature of war is not the salient point. People die? Yes they do. Civilians? Yep. The idea is that the casualties of war are less than the casualties of inaction. In this case, that litmus test is certainly passed. The freeing of the Iraqi people is not the central reason for initiating aggression, but it certainly makes a nice adjunct. Alone, it is a fairly compelling reason to consider aggression (although entering on that basis alone is problematic). So consider it a bonus. Our way of life is so taken for granted it is sickening. Look what these guys did with four airplanes. What could they do with actual weaponry and funding, once it became totally organized? The opponents to this war have yet to produce any significant reasoning for lack of action. You don't like war? Niether do I. I like the idea of nations supporting those who would plot our ruin even less. Especially if they become armed. [This message was edited by Fukkenshredded on 04-02-2003 at 10:19 AM.]