Does this mean war??

[AirForceRocks]

As long as the inspections are ongoing and unimpeded, our NATIONAL SECURITY IS NOT THREATENED

As I said before, you really should go to work for the NSA - you obviously have information that no one else in the government has....

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
As I said before, you really should go to work for the NSA - you obviously have information that no one else in the government has....

Thank you.........my sources are HIGHLY PLACED

 

[AirForceRocks]

Why don't you venture back to the DB EROS - there is a question there, just waiting for you to answer it....

 

[EROS]

08/15/2002 -

CIA's evidence of Iraqi threat lacks 'smoking gun'

By John Diamond, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence cannot say conclusively that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, an information gap that is complicating White House efforts to build support for an attack on Saddam's Iraqi regime.

The CIA has advised top administration officials to assume that Iraq has some weapons of mass destruction. But the agency has not given President Bush a "smoking gun," according to U.S. intelligence and administration officials.

The difficulty that lack of proof is causing the administration was evident in comments Thursday by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Rice told the BBC that Washington believes it has a "moral case" for removing Saddam, but she was careful not to say that Iraq currently possesses chemical, biological or nuclear arms.

Instead, Rice spoke of the danger Saddam would pose, "if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them."

Administration officials say this sense of uncertainty is influencing Bush's preparations for a major effort to sell his Iraq policy this fall.

A combination of factors — Saddam's record of aggression, Iraq's support of terrorism, its hostility toward the United States and its interest in developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons — forms the major justification for ousting Saddam, U.S. officials say.

But without clear proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, administration officials worry whether the fear of a future Iraqi threat will be enough to win broad support for a military strike.

The most recent unclassified CIA report on the subject goes no further than saying it is "likely" that Iraq has used the four years since United Nations inspectors left the country to rebuild chemical and biological weapons programs.

The greatest fear in Washington is that Iraq will develop a nuclear weapon, but the CIA says that is years away unless Iraq manages to buy black market fissile material.

 

[AirForceRocks]

The most recent unclassified CIA report on the subject goes no further than saying it is "likely" that Iraq has used the four years since United Nations inspectors left the country to rebuild chemical and biological weapons programs.

Please note the word "unclassified" in the above sentence. Which means you have no idea what is contained in the classified reports.

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Which means you have no idea what is contained in the classified reports.

Now you're starting to scare me

Pooooooooooooooooor GEORGE................if only he could get a "smoking gun" from his buddies at Langley.........he'd be in 7th heaven

 

[AirForceRocks]

Pooooooooooooooooor GEORGE................if only he could get a "smoking gun" from his buddies at Langley.........he'd be in 7th heaven

And you know for certain there is no "smoking gun" because....?

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And you know for certain there is no "smoking gun" because....

..........this administration is soooooooooooooo desperate that they would have "leaked" it to the Post loooooooooong ago.

I know, I know, they can't compromise their sources. . In other words, their evidence is skimpy at best............rather like a g-string on a 400 lb exotic dancer ..........

 

[EROS]

AFR, here's a goodnight pic for ya

Love that B-52 Stratofortress

 

[EROS]

B-1

 

[kaabost]

MAN!!!! After 6 pages one would THINK that we could all agree on a very good (IMO) point made by AFR in that we can't nase decisions on FEELINGS or HUNCHES (ex. the president is bloodthirsty). Can't we all at least agree that only facts and direct quotes are useful in such a conversation?

 

[shortbun]

Afganistan was warranted-IMHO. I hated
it but I was behind it.

 

[mamajoan]

I do believe we will Make it thru the holidays without the initiation of war with Iraq. However.. I do believe that once the final inspection report is in at the end of January and then Mr. Bush#2 gives his State of the Union address we shall begin our battle with Iraq....no one will win... no one.. not Iraq, not America, not Bush, not Hussein, not Bin Laden... Everyone will lose..everyone..

again, as I do on each thread debating this upcoming debacle, I will request prayers for peace and prayers for political leaders of the world to be open to the option of peaceful negotiations.

Joan

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by shortbun
Afganistan was warranted-IMHO. I hated
it but I was behind it.

OK, that's a start. So, we know now that was can be justified if a country is attacked, as we were.

That would lead into my next question - why must we wait to be attacked to take action? Why can't we act to STOP attacks against our country?

If we had been able to use military action to prevent 9/11 from happening, would you have opposed that because we hadn't been attacked?

I'm just trying to see where people's true feelings are. I'm more and more getting the feeling that war is OK if we are attacked first, whereas I'm much more a believer in doing what it takes to stop an attack on America, thus saving AMERICAN lives.

 

[AirForceRocks]

again, as I do on each thread debating this upcoming debacle, I will request prayers for peace and prayers for political leaders of the world to be open to the option of peaceful negotiations.

Debacle?



As for peaceful negotiations, we've been having them for 12 years now - how long do you think we should continue until Hussein is forced to live up to his obligations?

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
whereas I'm much more a believer in doing what it takes to stop an attack on America, thus saving AMERICAN lives.

Same old, same old. Please go back and read about the Cuban Missile Crisis. People like you in the Pentagon were urging John Kennedy to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USSR to "save American lives". Typical military rhetoric. Kennedy, to his credit, rejected the hawkish advice from his Generals, and instead got the Russians to back down via a blockade and some backdoor negotiations. HE SAVED THE WORLD............no thanks to those like yourself who insisted that we had to strike FIRST ............

 

[AirForceRocks]

Typical military rhetoric. Kennedy, to his credit, rejected the hawkish advice from his Generals, and instead got the Russians to back down via a blockade and some backdoor negotiations.

And we've been doing the diplomacy route with Hussein for 12 years now. It hasn't worked.

Time to try something different.

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks


Time to try something different.

WElllllllllllllllllllllllll, WAR is definitely different . Unlike negotiation or U.N Inspections, it will mean the spilling of the blood of many young Americans. You're much more sanguine about such a course than me .........

 

[AirForceRocks]

You're much more sanguine about such a course than me

Not at all - I think war is a terrible thing. Unfortunately, it is sometimes the only thing left. I feel that this is such a case.

 

[EROS]

Is it really worth it to you to lose fine young men to effect a "Regime Change"???? Our sons, daughters, brothers,sisters, mothers, fathers............DEAD .... like this young man.........for what???????