Protecting Intelligence Sources...

The war itself might also compromise the lives of America's sons and daughters.

 

Yes, but War with incontrivertible reason should be started as stealthily as possible in order not to compromise the lives of American's sons and daughters.

it really is a Military/UN Catch-22 if there is absolute cause to do it. If there is absolute cause to do it, then that means you have the responsibility to make sure they don't use WMDs while you are trying to disarm them. In the event of absolute proof against a country trying desparately to hide that proof (presumably for some evil reason), you must agree (I don't see how anyone can disagree) that the best military approach to limit casualties is to not let them know that you know their exact locations before physically disarming/dismantling them.

 

Did you miss the post where I mentioned that the government also withholds intelligence when they don't want to intervene in a country that isn't convenient to the current political agenda?

The bottom line is that we're either waiting for the inspectors to find something incriminating or we are waiting for the administration to manufacture evidence that they don't currently have.

Pakistan has never been considered a very friendly nation yet we allowed them to conduct a nuclear weapons program without invading them. Maybe because they don't control any oil fields?

Believe whatever you want, you know jack and **** about how the intelligence structure works. If we had the incontrovertible evidence it would have been brought out by now to force the U.N. into supporting our strike. Iraq has never been so close to manufacturing nuclear weapons that they could put them together in the space of time between giving the evidence to the U.N. and the incoming air/ground attack against the areas the facilities that contained the weapons.

I think you've read too many ****ing Tom Clancy novels.

 

Or where it isn't the subject of UN resolutions and a negotiated cease fire.

And you accuse others of reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

Or maybe because the UN hasn't outlawed their nuclear program. Or maybe because they haven't violated a cease fire between them and the US.

And you know better? Are you Special Agent Heretic now?

 

Assuming that Iraq does have ready-to-go WMD, isn't it arrogant to assume that the USA knows where all of Iraq's WMD are?

Our own CIA has stated that Iraq's WMD represent a deterrent capability. Bush is going to send in the troops to test that theory. If no WMD are deployed when we invade, it will be our bad for invading. If WMD are deployed, the CIA will be proven correct and Iraq will be disarmed when they get through firing what they got at us. As I see it, Bush is in a lose-lose situation.

 

herectic,

you can stop now, because you didn't even know that Congress had already given Bush carte blanche.

You need to settle down. You are exposing yourself as someone swatting at air like a flailing duck after being shot in mid-air.

 

I don't know where you are going with the "arrogant" comment, but it is not acceptable according to the UN for them to have WMD. The UN incontrovertibly insists that Iraq disarm and give up those weapons. The UN does not care if they are a deterrent or not. That is a non issue. The UN wants them destroyed if they are indeed there.

Now, having said that, we should measure the real threat, no doubt. But damn, I don't want them to have them, and I'm sure if we all knew they did for "deterrant" reason, the public would want them gone, *especially* since that would mean they are hiding them from the UN inspectors.

case close on that. The UN inspectors declared they cannot have these weapons for any reason.

 

I was in military intel for 4 years with a top secret clearance. I'm basing my opinions on how I know the intelligence system worked as of 2.5 years ago. That's more than you can say.

There were multiple incidents in 3rd world hell holes that the U.S and the U.N. never intervened in fyi and it's available if you dig up news articles on the pacific/indian ocean islands and africa for the past 10 years.




Got your hands bound, your head down,
your eyes closed.
You look so precious now

 

greaaaat......another one.

 

Originally posted by Heretic
I was in military intel for 4 years with a top secret clearance. I'm basing my opinions on how I know the intelligence system worked as of 2.5 years ago. That's more than you can say.
...

Possibly could provide you with more insight, or it could be like a junior accountant claiming to know what took place at the Board of Director's meeting.

Got your hands bound, your head down,
your eyes closed.
You look so precious now

 

Boy you sure showed me.

If you recall anything from your time there, you would know that they can't share it with the public until all plans are made and ready for immediate deployment, and the intel subsequently declassified.

And how many of them involved the blatant violation of a cease fire and a UN resolution? Oh...that's right...NONE.

You should probably see a shrink about this.

 

Huh. I woulda thought an intel guy would have known that at the beginning of desert storm, the Iraqis were approximately one to three months from having a working nuclear weapon. I mean, that information isn't even classified at any level. Military intelligence, you say? What unit (Div/Bde/Bn/Co)? When? How long was your AIT? Where were you stationed?

Excuse me for not believing you. You don't sound old enough for it.

Major:

You are aware that the majority did not overwhelmingly support war the first time around, are you not? Nor in Kosovo or Bosnia.

Public support is *not* absolutely necessary (or even usually forthcoming) to prosecute a war. It helps, and it usually comes once combat operations begin, but as a prerequisite? The support for this war is currently higher than it was pre-Desert Storm. It will rise over the coming weeks, and spike dramatically once combat operations begin.

The war will not last long at all. Only time for a couple of polls anyway.

 

heypartner, I'm actually open to the idea of war, when war is justified. So far I've been trying to formulate an opinion with the scant evidence that the president has given us.

The president has exaggerated ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If you listen to the experts... the CIA, the FBI and the International Atomic Agency (whatever their anacronym is), he has exaggerated the strength of Iraq's wmd programs, including the utility of a couple of rocket launcher tubes. His chief of Staff pushed the point by saying that Saddam 'probably' has wmd programs. 'Probably'. There are few people with more honor or security clearance than Bob Graham... and Bob Graham thinks the president is being silly. Bob Graham is also the hawkiest of hawks and thinks that we should go to war with North Korea and (if I read him correctly) Saudi Arabia for actual culpability in 09/11.

Since this isn't a light matter, and since the president hasn't felt fit to rationalize war... I can only assume that he's a Napoleon or that he thinks that he has a larger mandate b/c of 09/11. He could at least acknowledge the slippery slope of preemptive wars; he most certainly should stop riding the wave of sentiment. Strong arming people, as he did last fall, into agreeing with the congressional mandate... getting Max Cleland kicked out of the Senate... blatantly arguing that people that raise these questions (that we finally are raising today) weren't being patriots... is unpatriotic in and of itself. To expect complacency from the masses, when he hasn't even given the argument for war is a disgrace to the flag.

ps, can other people quit reminding us that we're not at war? The President of the United States has said repeatedly that we're at war. The President of the United States campaigned for repubs last fall on the topic of going to war with Iraq. The President of the United States has spoken in front of Americans and discussed war with Iraq every day for six ****ing months. He has only given pause to talk to the UN b/c the people demanded him to. Using the flag and 09/11 is certainly more inflammatory than using the UN as a ruse... but to use the UN and confuse the people as to what the ****ing bar for war is is as gross as a hummer-level lie.

There are reasons to go to war. Some are just and some aren't. The president is acting like some smarmy eleven year old trying to rationalize one path after he has been called on another. Put your best ****ing argument forward next week you moron.

And make it good enough to sooth those young impressionable males in the Middle East. The line about "your enemy rules your country" was good.

 

Achebe,

What I want to know is proof for waging war on Kiwis!!!

 

Are you trying your best to avoid the Rockets forum after tonights spanking?

 

heypartner, two down. Bravo, Mango...

or maybe it was two other people.

 

Spoken by a true Army idiot.

dude...the difference between you and I is you talk about your Intel and experience...I don't. I knew Intel....and Sir, you are not Intel.

Tom Clancy knows more than you.

 

Oops!

Got one hand down, one on your head, your head to the side.
You look so embarrassed now.

 

Actually...

He put one hand in...
He took one hand out...
He put one hand in and he shooke it all about...
He looks like he's doing the Hokey-Pokey.

 

Treeman:

Iraq was 1-3 months away from having working nukes? Could you provide credible links to this? I wasn't really old enough at the time to know such things.

At least their delivery system was terrible .