• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why it no longer matters what Saddam does...

Saddam will indeed destroy the missiles as ordered by Blix, but it no longer matters.

The Nimitz has just been ordered to the Gulf, that makes 6 carriers now steaming around Iraq. You don't send half your navy and 1/4 of your entire military half way across the planet, and then call it all off at the last minute without a damm good reason.

If Saddam wants to avoid war at this point, he is going to have to give that damm good reason, and about the only option left to him at this point is exile. The decision was made a month or two ago, probably in December. Saddam will be removed from power, one way or another. Bush would never be able to call the forces home otherwise, he would be destroyed politically.

Hopper
 
i heard about that this morning...all i could think was man it would suck to be him.

One thing i always wondered was with all the body doubles he has ..he ould have died along time ago and no one would have known...
 
Originally posted by: Atrail
You think Bush is going to get re-elected now?

I don't think he is going to make it.

Yeah, he shoud be acting like Klinton and keep his eyes on polls, and sit on his hand do nothing in fear of not getting re-elected.
 
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: Atrail
You think Bush is going to get re-elected now?

I don't think he is going to make it.

Yeah, he shoud be acting like Klinton and keep his eyes on polls, and sit on his hand do nothing in fear of not getting re-elected.
HAHA - that is SO true.

 
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: Atrail
You think Bush is going to get re-elected now?

I don't think he is going to make it.

Yeah, he shoud be acting like Klinton and keep his eyes on polls, and sit on his hand do nothing in fear of not getting re-elected.
HAHA - that is SO true.

 
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: Atrail
You think Bush is going to get re-elected now?

I don't think he is going to make it.

Yeah, he shoud be acting like Klinton and keep his eyes on polls, and sit on his hand do nothing in fear of not getting re-elected.
HAHA - that is SO true.

 
hehe,
I think Bush's political team is failing him at the moment.
Their strategy is isolating him from the American people as well as other nations.
If they could develop something to trigger the war and Bush comes in and saves the day, it will
turn the tide of public opinion. Much remains to be seen.
 
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: Atrail
You think Bush is going to get re-elected now?

I don't think he is going to make it.

Yeah, he shoud be acting like Klinton and keep his eyes on polls, and sit on his hand do nothing in fear of not getting re-elected.

No, he should go after every dumbass who tried to kill his daddy...
 
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Saddam will indeed destroy the missiles as ordered by Blix, but it no longer matters.

The Nimitz has just been ordered to the Gulf, that makes 6 carriers now steaming around Iraq. You don't send half your navy and 1/4 of your entire military half way across the planet, and then call it all off at the last minute without a damm good reason.

If Saddam wants to avoid war at this point, he is going to have to give that damm good reason, and about the only option left to him at this point is exile. The decision was made a month or two ago, probably in December. Saddam will be removed from power, one way or another. Bush would never be able to call the forces home otherwise, he would be destroyed politically.

Hopper

Do you honestly believe that anything at anytime done by Saddam would have made any difference? Disarming Iraq and ties to UN resolutions are nothing but smoke and mirrors meant to get the RoW onside with the War on Iraq. If a year ago everyone would have just gone along with the US, none of the attempts to disarm Iraq or even attempts to involve the UN would have even been attempted. Bush seriously overestimated Global sympathy for the US over 9/11, he thought he could just add Iraq on his WoT list and expect full and unquestioning support.
 
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Saddam will indeed destroy the missiles as ordered by Blix, but it no longer matters.

The Nimitz has just been ordered to the Gulf, that makes 6 carriers now steaming around Iraq. You don't send half your navy and 1/4 of your entire military half way across the planet, and then call it all off at the last minute without a damm good reason.

If Saddam wants to avoid war at this point, he is going to have to give that damm good reason, and about the only option left to him at this point is exile. The decision was made a month or two ago, probably in December. Saddam will be removed from power, one way or another. Bush would never be able to call the forces home otherwise, he would be destroyed politically.

Hopper
See this is one of my huge problems. "We're doing it because he's violating UN orders." Then after he agrees to comply we figure well as long as we're here. I want the government to be honest with the country about what they're doing and their motivations and I don't think they could lie more than they are.
 
I agree, Bush should be honest.

Just come out and say what he's all about.

"I don't like Saddam. I don't like the fact that he survived and my daddy got voted out of office. So therefore I am committing the nation to war and ignoring the real threat, North Korea."

 
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: Atrail
You think Bush is going to get re-elected now?

I don't think he is going to make it.

Yeah, he shoud be acting like Klinton and keep his eyes on polls, and sit on his hand do nothing in fear of not getting re-elected.
HAHA - that is SO true.

God bless Clinton for taking care of Osama after the first WTC attack, and after the USS cole attack, and after the bombing in Africa attack. Boy am I glad that he finished the job so we wouldnt have to deal with Bin Laden any more.
 
Originally posted by: Soybomb
See this is one of my huge problems. "We're doing it because he's violating UN orders." Then after he agrees to comply we figure well as long as we're here. I want the government to be honest with the country about what they're doing and their motivations and I don't think they could lie more than they are.
You missed one key point...

Saddam has not agreed to comply. If he did so, he could avoid a war. But it would have to be total and 100% complete compliance.

Hopper
 
it no longer matters what Saddam does...

Took you til the end of February to figure this out eh genius?
~wnied~

 
hm..1/2 the navy is half way around the world..it's only a hop and a skip towards korea from there. do u think bushy has the balls to send the fleet towards the korean coast after iraq has been wiped?

i think not (even tho he has alot more VALID reason to go after korea than iraq)
 
Korea's "missiles" are untested and likely can't reach us. Saddam has connections to terrorists who can reach us. Need more?

Plus, from Iraq, it's a short boatride to Korea. (Yay for canals.)
 
Since the Bush team had a plan in place 2+ years ago to take out Saddam, it never mattered what Saddam did:

02.24.03 - Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.
The PNAC report also:
l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';
l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';
l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;
l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';
l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.
Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.
'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

Web report: Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Neil Mackay
Copyright © 2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
 
You are overlooking the fact that every analyst has said all along that the only way to get Saddam to comply with the U.N. resolutions is to show overwhelming force and convince him that he is going to get his butt kicked if he does not comply.

Even IF Bush had never intended to invade Iraq, he would still have ordered the same exact build up of military force, and gone through the same motions of securing multilateral support, in order to convince Saddam that he is serious about forcing Iraq to comply. In other words, there is still a small possibility that this is all just a big expensive bluff.

In the unlikely event that Saddam complies completely with the UN resolutions, and not a single shot is fired by or at American forces in Iraq, I think Bush could claim victory and stand down our military without losing face. In fact, if he played it right, he could gain some serious political points around the world. But I also think that Saddam would have to demonstrate conclusively that he is no longer supporting world terrorism, and there is no way that he is going to do that.
 
Originally posted by: tk149
In other words, there is still a small possibility that this is all just a big expensive bluff.
It is no bluff, a bluff would imply that Bush had no intention of attacking Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the unlikely event that Saddam complies completely with the UN resolutions, and not a single shot is fired by or at American forces in Iraq, I think Bush could claim victory and stand down our military without losing face. In fact, if he played it right, he could gain some serious political points around the world. But I also think that Saddam would have to demonstrate conclusively that he is no longer supporting world terrorism, and there is no way that he is going to do that.
If Saddam really wants to survive, all he needs to do is completely and totally comply with the UN. Give up all the weapons, make it clear he no longer has them or wants them.

If he does that, I believe Bush will let him off the hook. But only that can allow Bush to stand down and claim victory. Anything less, and Bush has to attack.

Hopper
 
Back
Top