Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on October 10, 2002, 12:43:19 PM
-
http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailydispatch/index.html
While the Bush administration pushed Congress yesterday for a broad vote to authorize the president to use force against Iraq, a new element was injected into the debate by a CIA assessment that Saddam Hussein, while now stopping short of an attack, could become "much less constrained" if faced with an American-led force, according to The New York Times.
The judgment was contained in an Oct. 7 letter signed by the deputy CIA director, John McLaughlin, on behalf of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. It was alluded to in a hearing of a congressional panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks and then released last night, after the House opened its debate on Iraq.
The letter said "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States.
"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," it continued. It noted that Hussein could use either conventional terrorism or a weapon of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
Ivan Eland, Cato's director of defense policy studies, issued the following statement in regards to the CIA letter: "The CIA noted that Iraq now appears to be deterred from initiating terrorist attacks against the United States with conventional, biological or chemical weapons. But if the United States did invade Iraq and attempted to depose Hussein, the CIA concluded that he probably would be more likely to conduct such attacks. "
-
Well.... duh!
-SW
-
Wow, it takes so many people and institutions to point out the very obvious.
-
Yeah... I know... such posts are wasted on SW and Animal... but I try. :)
-
Hey I got an idea.. lets poke this rattle snake with a stick and see if it strikes
-
If SWulfe were Bush and I Saddam, there would be no problems left in the world.
-
True Animal.... but I would immediately force a non-aggression pact between our two countries, pay you a large lump sum to acquire Iraq as the 51st state, and supply your country with the most high tech weapons available.
Once your people were fully trained in the art of using these new high-tech weapons, I would declare the rest of the world our enemies and began systematically destroying each country's central government, acquire their military technology, and repeat until every country has been defeated...
I will then rename Earth to "United States of SeaWulfe and Animal" and resurrect the largest possible statue visible from space with me dressed up in a Napolean outfit standing proudly, with you on your knee-pads and your head burried in my crotch...
I will be the greatest leader the world has ever seen!
-SW
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hey I got an idea.. lets poke this rattle snake with a stick and see if it strikes
Nah, lets wait til it sneaks up on us when we're sleeping, then bites us (9/11)
-
It noted that Hussein could use either conventional terrorism or a weapon of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
LOL! I thought that was the point.
The rest of the article gets the big old "duh" from me too. It reminds me of the multi-year multi-million-dollar study in California that showed clearcutting an entire hillside led to an increased chance of mud-slides.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hey I got an idea.. lets poke this rattle snake with a stick and see if it strikes
Naw, instead let's chop it's head off with an ax before it has a chance. Really though, the whole snake analogy doesn't fit. Remember, a snake doesn't generally bother it's neighbors if you leave it alone. You can't say that about Hussien, can you? Snakes also don't hate, but just react instinctively. Leave them alone, and they're content. The Butcher of Bahgdad is not content to be left alone, a fact born out by the cold realities of history.
Sabre
-
I think the point here is that the CIA is tellin' folks that Hussein only plans to strike if strucken at. I know that's a "duh" thing... but I thought this upcoming war was about the fear of Hussein striking 1st...
So... do we plan to go to war with anyone with the gall to strike back if attacked? Or am I missing something here?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will then rename Earth to "United States of SeaWulfe and Animal" and resurrect the largest possible statue visible from space with me dressed up in a Napolean outfit standing proudly, with you on your knee-pads and your head burried in my crotch...
I will be the greatest leader the world has ever seen!
-SW [/B]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL :D, you're killing me. Getting some strange looks from the co-workers.
hehehehehhehe
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think the point here is that the CIA is tellin' folks that Hussein only plans to strike if strucken at. I know that's a "duh" thing... but I thought this upcoming war was about the fear of Hussein striking 1st...
So... do we plan to go to war with anyone with the gall to strike back if attacked? Or am I missing something here?
Nash, we're not particularly worried about Iraq striking, its the puppets they supply weapons, money, WMD to that worry us (Al Queda for instance)
Its a case of us being either Pro-active or RE-active, the latter being 9/11.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don't, so, may as well be the pro-active.
-
Animal: Wow, it takes so many people and institutions to point out the very obvious.
Obvious? How come Saddam Hussein was not deterred from trying to annex Kuwait once while obviously "faced with an American-led force"? US did kick his bellybutton but only after he invaded. I guess it seemed less obvious to him than it did to you.
US did kick Taliban's bellybutton after 9/11, which was obvious to everybody but Taliban.
US did kick Hitler's bellybutton and japanese bellybutton after those started wars, which was also obvious to everybody but them.
Attack on Fort Sumter by Confederates which guaranteed the downfall of the South? Obvious.
Trying to win the country back for King George with mighty french on colonies' side making it impossible? Obvious. To us, after the fact.
Dumed North Koreans invasion below 37th? Obvious. Not to them, I guess.
There may be good reason for not starting war with Iraq - having our deeply divided mutually hostile country full of cowards and idiots with no guts to back it up is my favorite one - but relying on something being "obvious" to Hussein is not one of them.
miko
-
The UN went to the Gulf in 1990's to kick Iraqui forces out of Kuwait. Saddam did not know if he allied forces would knock on his door in baghdad, but you betcha he wouldve "gone all out" if the did.
Now the US is gunning for Saddam himself. If the UN sanctions it he has nothing else to lose and WILL go "all out".
I think this summarizes it:
(http://www.ozyandmillie.org/comics/om19980520.gif)
(http://www.ozyandmillie.org/comics/om19980519.gif)
(http://www.ozyandmillie.org/comics/om20020925.gif)
-
If the bubble reputation can be obtained only at the cannon's mouth, I am willing to go there for it, provided the cannon is empty. If it is loaded my immortal and inflexible purpose is to get over the fence and go home. My invariable practice in war has been to bring out of every fight two-thirds more men than when I went in. This seems to me Napoleonic in its grandeur.
- "Mark Twain
-
"Nash, we're not particularly worried about Iraq striking, its the puppets they supply weapons, money, WMD to that worry us (Al Queda for instance)" - Ripsnort
...
Oh, you mean like attacking the actual people who are wanting to attack the US.
Sorta like that thing... what was it called? Ah, the war on terrorism. That's so yesterday though...
I guess the policy now is attacking anyone with the potential of supplying WMD to puppet regimes... Gulp
-
Beats sitting around waiting for yet another 9/11 to occur.:rolleyes:
-
Have the US sorted out those IRA terrorists arrested for training Columbian guerillas yet?
Britain will just have to go over to the US and get them. And while we're at it, we'll unilaterally snatch a few of the American IRA supporters of yesteryear... afterall we ought to be targetting the people who 'just-might-possibly' supply arms to the IRA in the future. That will get your support, right? Isn't that action in the 'War on Terrorism'?
-
Hey I got an idea.. lets poke this rattle snake with a stick and see if it strikes
yep and when it does shoot the sumgun and makes some nice boots out of it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Beats sitting around waiting for yet another 9/11 to occur.:rolleyes:
Which means... destroy anyone that might hold a grudge or grievance with the U.S.
Compared with the most terrible events of history, 911 wasn't even a pimple.
The history books are full of countries that thought they could control the world.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nah, lets wait til it sneaks up on us when we're sleeping, then bites us (9/11)
If we can see the snake, let's grab a shotgun and blow him to kingdom come. "He who lets rattlers hang around his camp will get his bellybutton bit."
-
Have the US sorted out those IRA terrorists arrested for training Columbian guerillas yet?
Britain will just have to go over to the US and get them.
I'd love to see them try this :)
"The RedCoats are coming!"
LOL
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Hey I got an idea.. lets poke this rattle snake with a stick and see if it strikes
Why not? its going to strike anyway. You think he loves us?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Have the US sorted out those IRA terrorists arrested for training Columbian guerillas yet?
Britain will just have to go over to the US and get them. And while we're at it, we'll unilaterally snatch a few of the American IRA supporters of yesteryear... afterall we ought to be targetting the people who 'just-might-possibly' supply arms to the IRA in the future. That will get your support, right? Isn't that action in the 'War on Terrorism'?
How about Britain sort out the IRA terrorists? Your more than welcome to invade the U.S. (ROFL).
-
I was taking the piss, you pair of dolts. :rolleyes:
-
Will invading Iraq prevent another 9/11? Would 9/11 have happened had we invaded Iraq 10 yrs ago? Should we invade every country we 'suspect' may have something to do with 9/11? Will the arab world stop terrorizing the west if we invade one of their countries?
We seem to forget all the people we have been pissing off with our airstrikes and cruisemissles for the past 2 decades.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Will invading Iraq prevent another 9/11? Would 9/11 have happened had we invaded Iraq 10 yrs ago? Should we invade every country we 'suspect' may have something to do with 9/11? Will the arab world stop terrorizing the west if we invade one of their countries?
We seem to forget all the people we have been pissing off with our airstrikes and cruisemissles for the past 2 decades.
When Jimmy Carters quick strike force failed in the desert in Iran in 1979, in the eyes of the extremist Islamics, there was a crack in the foundation....when 250+ marines died in Beirut trying to restore peace to the region, and we pulled out our troops, that crack, in the eyes of the extremist Islamics, widened. When we failed to bring Saddam out of Bagdad in 1991, they pointed to us as weak again. When the WTC was bombed in the early 90's, they said "See, they rutabagas, vulnerable rutabagas". When we tried to protect food shipments in Somalia, and subsequently pulled out after a thwarted attempt, that gave them more ammunition for showing what cowards we were in their eyes.
They only understand one concept. Fear. In their eyes, you either give fear, receive fear or understand it and leave it alone.
-
"See, they rutabagas, vulnerable rutabagas"
Unfortunately, Rip, they seem to be right. Even if the president tricks the country into assuming a brave posture this one time, it will not change the underlying nature of the people.
miko
-
I like to think of the U.S. as the grumpy old man on the easy chair trying to watch the game...
"If you make me get up, I'll whip your ass."
Kinda like Afghanistan... Dubya had nearly complete and total support for that campaign.
Our history is pockmarked with a few instances where the U.S. decided to strike first. Not a single occurrence has become something we're proud of.
-
REminds me of Whack-A-Mole at Chuckie Cheese
The US is the hammer
try this JavaScripts version
http://www.lanningpages.com/cats/londyn/dotsinsecs/dots.html
got 30 in 30 secs :)
this one is better :)
http://www.attleborokids.com/gopher.htm
(530 level 6)