Protecting Intelligence Sources...

Does popular support HAVE to be in place BEFORE the first offensive? What if you get your evidence immediately prior or just after the first offensive?

Good intelligence saves lives. Period. Intelligence that's dissiminated to the whole fricken world is no longer intelligence.

Personally, I'd take the saved lives over popular support.

 

You're right...people will still support a war even if they don't think it's worth going to war, like your numbers show. This makes whether or not people think it is actually worth going to war more important than simply saying they'll support it even if they don't agree.

The numbers are even greater now, and you don't even have a Kuwait situation. That is quite surprising and contradicts those who keep going on about nobody supporting a possible war.

 

Major, you are not accurate in your statement that the "people" don't already back the admin, here. You know that now, right?

<blockQUOTE><hr>Originally posted by Major

If it was incontrovertible, I would say "here is evidence that Iraq is not complying. We expect the UN to back its resolution and participation in a military invasion of Iraq. If you don't, the UN is a worthless body of government that is going to be irrelevent in the coming decades."<hr></blockquote>Well, what happened to you saying that we needed to ratify yet another (3rd) resolution about the same issue.

Haven, Pole, the Delaware Senator and I all understand that military objectives are of a concern wrt revealing proof. Those targets could move upon revealing them, thus putting our military in jeopardy if Major then says, "OK, go get 'em boys."

<blockquote><hr>In all the responses that I saw, there's not an answer to my question in there. Yeah, there's some crap about protecting sources, but I specifically asked about Satellite Photos.<hr></blockQUOTE>
The informants are important, because if you reveal details, you expose them and immediately lose that source of intel. You want to keep that intel in place to monitor the VX/Anthrax, if you are not ready to attack right away.

What? Do you expect to see ICBMs on trucks and Silos being built like in Cuba? I don't understand what you expect to see from Satellites...that's just bull**** spin of the Admin. The real evidence will be from foot informants, imo.

 

Major,

Let me pose this scenario for you:

The US has solid intell on some nasty stuff that is hidden and could be used in warheads similar to the empty missiles/shells found the other week. It is kept in different locations from the empty warheads, but the weapons could be made complete in less than 24 hours once Saddam gives the word.

What would be the incentive for flipping the <b>Ace Cards</b> (locations of the nasty stuff) NOW, if the US is still 4 weeks away from having everything in place? If the cards are flipped now, then wouldn't Saddam give the word for all of the weapons to be made complete since the jig would be up? That would make things much more complicated on the ground if Saddam has ample time to get the nasty stuff <i>married together</i>.

 

For the love of Christ...tell me you don't really mean this drivel.

Declassifying all of the available information right now would basically spill our plans to Saddam. You don't want to give the pposing team your playbook before the big game. Why would you want to compromise the military in the fashion you have suggested?

The end result would be scores more Americans coming home in body bags than necessary. Maybe you're comfortable with that...but I'm not.

 

You sir, are about as sharp as a marble if you believe this administration is telling the truth.

 

Boy...you really told me.

 

<b>
Two things. One, if Saddam could have the weapons ready in 24 hours, he'd do that now. He's not going to wait until we say anything to get those weapons ready. Second, if we knew that were the case, we would have gone in yesterday. This debate wouldn't even be occurring and we wouldn't be discussing whether we should go to war in weeks or months.........
</b>

The preferred situation is to have everything in place beforehand, so going in yesterday is unlikely.

Why would Saddam have the stuff <i>married together</i> if he can stall for time and obfuscate the issue? Back in the mid 1990's, the inspectors weren't finding much more and then Saddam's son-in-law (Kamel) turned defector and new discoveries were made. If Kamel didn't defect (temporarily), Saddam possibly would have gotten away with things in the mid 1990's.

For your viewpoint to be correct, then Saddam would have changed his stance from the mid 1990's of stalling and hoping the inspectors would be satisfied. What makes you think that Saddam has altered his tactics away from stalling?

<A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/defectors.html">Analysis of Kamel defection</A>

Robin Wright:
<i>........

<b>Before Hussein Kamel's defection, in August of 1995, you write that Saddam was beating the West in some way, and UNSCOM. How?</b>

In 1995, Saddam Hussein actually appeared to be winning in his strategy of cheat and retreat. He had actually managed to hide so many of his weapons that many of the U.N. weapons inspectors thought that he had turned over most of them, and were prepared to make that kind of recommendation. And it was only on the defection of his son-in-law and cousin [Kamel] that the international community realized how much he really still had. The whole crisis actually might have ended at that point, if it hadn't been for that very ... defection. ...
<b>
What was revealed in Kamel's defection?</b>

Kamel's defection led to two important disclosures. One was the information he provided Western intelligence agencies. But, secondly, Saddam Hussein knew that he was about to be caught, and so he took weapons inspectors down to Kamel's chicken farm, and said that they'd only just discovered these containers full of documents about weapons of mass destruction. Of course, feigned his own ignorance, and blamed it all on Kamel.
<b>
What changed for Saddam after that?</b>

Well, it became apparent that he had hidden an extraordinary amount of material, and from that point on UNSCOM was, again, a going concern.

The quantity was staggering. It took the U.N. weapons inspectors months and months and months just to go through and translate every -- and create a database for what was in those papers. It revealed that Saddam Hussein had also hidden far more than anyone ever realized he had, to begin with. This really was the critical turning point of the entire eight years in trying to deal with Saddam Hussein. It put the U.N. weapons program back on track.
</i>


<b>
......Besides that, don't flip the Ace Cards. Just reveal the location of ONE piece of damning evidence. That's all you need to show, and people are actually more likely to believe you if you say you you have additional proof, rather than saying "we have proof, but we're not showing you any of it - just trust us" for 6 months. </b>

If you flip one Ace Card, then be prepared to flip them all since things will have shifted to an <i>endgame</i> situation with the move of showing Iraq to be in breach. ONE piece of damning evidence would be enough for you and that would be enough to show Iraq in breach......why hold back the rest of the cards?


Don't put the chessboard in an <i>endgame</i> situation unless you are prepared to play that immediately.

 

you never did well when you played "Risk" did you?

 

NJ, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how I feel about a possible war with Iraq.

 

RM95---

are you making sense again?

 

Not any more than you are.

In an earlier post, you assumed how I felt about Iraq and our possible war against them. I then asked you to tell me how I felt about such a prospect, and you ignored it. Since you think you know, I'd like to hear your opinion.

 

No...in an earlier post, you jumped on Batman's coattails while he and I were having a discussion on the evidence, or lack thereof, of Iraq-terrorist ties etc. It appeared pretty clear to me that you supported his position. Then I responded by saying...


One mroe thing....on one hand you (BJ, rm95) say that you don;t believe anything that comes out of the White House. On the other hand, you say that you want them to present evidence proving their case against Iraq. Are you going to believe anything they tell you anyway? If no, then why the hangup about wanting to see evidence?

If I was wrong is assuming your opinion, then its your own fault for jumping in to the discussion with pom poms instead of your own thoughts.

 

I'm sorry, I'll adhere to your rules of posting from now on so you don't make any more incorrect assumptions.

And how two posts asking one simple question constitues "pom poms" is beyond me.

 

Its evident that everyone's getting annoyed with each other, but I did want to point out that this is a beautiful conversation. This is what we're supposed to do... public discourse, wringing each others throats (*metaphorically*, stay away from me roxran, you scare me), trying to reach consensus or discern the truth on perhaps the largest of topics.

That would be me heyp. I'm the one that thinks the President is milking the flag and seriously stretching his mandate (hell, he wasn't elected, he has no mandate).

It was the President's responsibility to argue convincingly for war last night. He took a zero (well, a push... if you believed in war before, fine; if you were confused as to his reasoning, you're still confused). Our illegitimate President will defer to Powell in a few weeks... again blurring the argument as to whether or not the bar for war is "Iraq has weapon x" vs the standard "are preemptive wars sound".

It remains to be seen whether or not the public is ok with this line of reasoning. Can China take Taiwan? Can N. Korea storm S. Korea? Might is right, correct? Preemptive strikes can be spun in any number of ways. Hey, are you looking at me funny?

 

Achebe,

The question to this thread was why not show Intel sooner. An answer is here, yet the argument revert backs to the same 'ole same 'ole. The answer to why not show intel sooner, has nothing really to do with a discussion...it apparently seems to be just another setup to argue the same thing.

btw: another answer to Major's question was made clear last night. If they do have Satellite Photos of the shell game in progress as the inspectors are heading to a building (complete with cell phone/radio transmissions describing where the inspectors are), then maybe you or Major can 'splain to me how they could get that Intel any sooner! Huh?? Answer that...so they used the Resolution to get Iraqis to startup the shell game again to get fresh/more convincing proof. I mean, you need inspections going on to get that Intel, right???

The other thing that really annoys me about the approach of hangouts debates on these subjects is someone who is just trying to discuss boths sides is still pigeonholed. Achebe, it is quite shallow of you to assume I am buying into Bush's claims, and it is quite insulting to say I'm a sucker riding the 9/11 images and flags waving.

I also think it is extremely naive to think Bush Sr drove to war unnecessarily, or took advantage of it for reasons of oil in any way close to being compared to Saddam's stated motives.

Do I trust Jr? No? But I trust that the Army has learned its lesson on being a police force, unnecessarily, or trying to be imperialistic.

Here's the deal with me....I don't have any proof to decide any more than you. Your position is based on faith that Bush is lying, because he hasn't shown you anything, and will never convince you. And you might not even want War in any event.

right now, my faith is based on the military has reasons to release info on their schedule, and I don't really care if politicians spin the info for their own benefit prior. I'm waiting on the Intel and the response from the UN. But shouting at the Admin like you, BJ and Major are doing...is too preemptive imo.

The only issues to me for debate are is the intel enough reason to have a military build up and threaten attack. I tend to say Never...but I've been so freaking wrong on that approach before. Think about it Achebe, in our history, our most peaceful outcomes have always been preceded by a military buildup or threatened attack. Kennedy and Reagen are the best examples. You have to show that card.

Do I fear Bush letting corrupt advisors or overzealous revenge mongers actually play the card unnecessarily ... yes. Do I think Rumsfeld is an overzealous revenge monger eager enough to committ 250,000 troops to a very difficult and complicated campaign....apparently, not as much as you. If everyone is deluded or lying about the threat with not much ability to actually go in and pull real VX/Anthrax proof out of that country...they've got to know that heads will publically roll if land units start getting ambushed.

but the bottomline is: don't say I'm falling for 9/11 propoganda...because my mind is not made up like yours is...imo, your the one liable to be falling for 9/11 propoganda (from the protest side) by the very fact your mind is made up already, and mine isn't.

 

Last time I checked this country was a Democracy, which means that the politicians in office are alledgedly answerable to the citizens.

The American citizens want to see incontrovertible proof before sending their sons and daughters off to war. Is that so much to ask for?

 

If it compromises the lives of their sons and daughters, do you still think they want to see proof?

 

I guess you didn't know that Congress already passed a bill through that allows Bush to make the call on this without asking the UN or Congress again. You may disagree with that, but Congress (our representatives) did give the OK, already.