Also–Bush’s pattern to date seems to be a matter of stringing his opponents along, letting them get further and further out on a limb, until that critical moment when he drops his bombshell and leaves them with no effective response. I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt on this–some time in mid-January, I expect that the Administration will release incontrovertible evidence that Saddam does indeed pose a clear and present danger, and now is the time to invade.
three days after the super bowl, whenever that is.
Heck, I’d be happy if they packaged the war in a neat little PR package for Americans. I haven’t heard a good, CLEAR reason why we’re going to be invading. Afghanistan was well handled, IMO:
(1) This is a country whose leaders harbor and support the terrorists who attacked the US on Sept. 11 and earlier (Cole, etc.)
(2) Bin Laden himself, the mastermind of those attacks, is in the country
(3) Therefore, we are invading so that we will render the country incapable of giving further aid to terrorist orgainizations that threaten the US, and hopefully shatter Al Qaeda and catch/kill its leaders.
What’s the step-by-step for Iraq? I’ll be damned if I know. If I were in Bush’s shoes, I would be telling people:
(1) Iraq invaded Kuwait; after we intervened and forced a surrender, Iraq agreed to destroy all WMDs, pursue no new WMD manufacture, and open itself to the full scrutiny of UN inspectors to verify that fact.
(2) Iraq has played hide-and-seek with the UN inspectors for years, and, therefore, has been in breach of its agreement for years.
(3) We should have stepped in long ago to force Iraqi compliance, but were willing to let the UN try its hand. That option has failed. Clearly, we made a mistake in expecting that Saddam might keep his word. Our patience has finally run out, and we’re going to correct our mistake and make sure that Iraq no longer has WMDs or the capacity to build them at short notice.
Of course, if he has some additional intelligence info. that says
“Our operatives have discovered 300 Scud missiles armed with VX warheads in the basement of one of Saddam’s “palaces”–and here’s the evidence (photos, inventory documents, testimony from Iraqi dissidents, etc.). So not only did Saddam fail to admit the inspectors as he agreed, but he also failed to disarm as he agreed.”
… all the better.
Unfortunately, the reason we’re invading is quite muddy, and Bush’s latest statements seem to indicate that Iraq poses a direct military threat to the US, something that NO evidence I’ve ever seen has indicated. A threat to Israel and our allies in the region, yes, but not to us. Unless he has some high-quality Soviet ICBMs, or the CIA uncovered an Iraqi plot to ship a bomb into the NY harbor, or release smallpox at Dulles airport, or to give training and financial support to Al Qaeda and other anti-US terrorist groups (something, by the way, that has not been shown at all), then Saddam poses zero threat to us.
Until Bush spells out the reason we are invading clearly and succinctly, the counter-explanations that we are just going in for oil, or to settle an old score against his dad, etc., have way too much validity.
Just give me a reason! It’s not so hard.
You give three compelling reasons, and then demand “just give me a reason”? Don’t you read your own posts?
Media spin will play a big part in this.
I would be very surprised if it occurs on or before Sunday, January 26, 2003, because that’s Super Bowl Sunday. Since Bush says he’s making the economy somewhat of a priority, he can’t screw up the Great American Party Sunday, nor mess with the advertisers.
Has Bush announced the date of the 2003 State of the Union Address yet? We will not go to war before he delivers the speech because the war would dilute the impact of the speech. In fact, depending upon how the SOFTU Address is received may very well lock down the date. If Bush scores poorly in the overnight political polls, he’ll hold off a bit. OTOH, if Bush gives a resounding speech, he use his fathers Big Mo! and go to war that much sooner.
Listen/watch for troop movement notifications. If selected US bases go on a lockdown, you can bet the war will start within 72 hours. Prior to that watch for troop callups. When the USA bombed Libya back in 1985, we got a late night phone call from my sister (living in the UK near a now defunct NATO base). She said the base was all lit up and everything was moving with massive aircraft movements all taking off low and slow, contrary to normal takeoffs. Twelve hours later the rest of the world knew what we already did know.
If Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, lights up, expect the attack to begin 24 hours later.
Desert Storm began on 16 January 1991 (January 17 at 0238 hours local time). The new moon occurred 15 January 1991 at 2350 hours universal time.
The first three new moons for 2003:
- 02 January 2003 @ 2023 universal time
- 01 February 2003 @ 1048 universal time
- 03 March 2003 @ 0235 universal time
The January new moon is now past. The March new moon is pushing it with the seasonal weather pattern changing in that part of the world. Even with a three-week air campaign before introducing grounds troops (similar to Desert Storm) the USA runs the risk of urban warfare during the Spring/Summer heat buildup. If Saddam really does retaliate with chemical/biological weapons, cooler, wetter weather is probably better for US Forces.
If we go with a new moon, it will be a Groundhog Day start, forcing Saddam relive the nightmare over and over again! 
I go with the war starting in the window between 26 January and 15 February 2003.
Look, buddy, you may not agree with me, and that’s certainly your right, but I don’t think that impugning a complete stranger’s mental health is bolstering your case, nor do I think it was called for.
Other posters have said it quite well, but here goes:
-
Significant evidence/reasons as to WHY this war must be done NOW have not been presented to we lowly peons who are not in the intelligence loop, as you claim to be. Perhaps they exist. Perhaps Saddam is lovingly patting a oil-drum full of the bubonic plague as I type this. Perhaps he has enough nuclear warheads to turn this earth into a sheet of molten glass. But “perhaps” is not, in my opinion, a reason to go to war. If Saddam has defied the U.N, let the U.N be the one to call for action. Without the ability to project power, how is Saddam a direct, immediate threat to us?
-
I may be incorrect, but if I have my history right, no American president has ever been voted out of office in the midst of a war.
-
Our economy is in the crapper. Bin Laden is still at large. There are a host of domestic problems.
-
Yet, American patriotism is at an all time high. It has been suggested, or hinted, by various public figures that to criticize the War on Terrorism, or the current administration is disloyal, and un-patriotic, an idea which seems to have gained a good deal of acceptance with the American people.
-
If a case can be made that an attack on Iraq is an extention of the War on Terrorism, then patriotic Americans will rally behind it, and the president that is leading it.
-
Number 5 will distract us from number 3.
-
Bush can ride the wave of public support to a second term.
Perhaps you are right. I am not a stratagist. He could wait 'til fall, or until the 12th of Never. I was merely expressing an opinion. Perhaps there will be no war, and all of our threats were no more than the political equivilent of chest-thumping.
My, you seem to know so much about me from a one sentance statment, don’t you?
A war to take Saddam from power would involve street to street fighting. American troops will die. Iraqi civilians will die. I did not claim that “Dubya” does not care about, uhm, us “'Mericans.” I do think, however, that if he intends to send troops to die, there had better be a compelling reason for it, which, as of yet, I have not seen. I would hate to see American blood shed over vague threats of WMD Saddam * might * have and * might * use. I see little support in the international community for a war. I have seen the president, however, trivialize the matter into a personal vendetta by saying, “This is the guy who tried to kill my dad.” This does not inspire confidence, or support for a millitary action.
It seems that a good deal of people are saying, “There’s a time for thinking, and there’s a time for action, * and this is no time for thinking!” * I couldn’t disagree more strongly with this sentiment. Dear God, if there’s one thing that should be heatedly argued about and debated lengthily, it’s war. Only a nation of idiots would charge blindly into a situation without considering each and every aspect of it. Argument and debate of policy is an extremely important thing in America.
Um… that’s pretty much exactly what he did on a nationally televised address to the nation a short time ago. IIRC, his address to the nation was shortly after his address to the UN. I don’t remember it verbatim, but I believe he said everything that you just said he shoud say. Or something like that.
oh, and my prediction… I’ll go with Ducksters 1 Feb new moon date. Light, or lack of it is everything is the opening moments of battle.
From the White House website , here is the speech Bush gave on Oct 7th concerning the threat posed by Iraq.
I gave the reasons. These would be MY reasons. But I’m not the president. I don’t have the foggiest idea why Bush is pushing us into war. Maybe he’s pissed because Saddam can grow a better mustache than he can. I don’t know. The man has left the issue as muddled as can be. He’s simply treated the whole thing as a done deal, nuff said, of COURSE we have to invade … he’s bad! But North Korea is bad… Iran’s not great… Saudi Arabia isn’t so hot… etc. etc. and we aren’t invading them.
Chandeleur–Could you dig up a link for that speech? That would be exactly the sort of thing that could allay my doubts somewhat. If it’s the case that he laid this all out, then he should repeat it every five minutes, and stop confusing the Iraqi situation with the COMPLETELY UNRELATED war on terror.
Way ahead of ya 
It’s the second link of my last post. I didn’t read it, but I did watch it quite attentively while he gave it. I do believe he addresses all the points you have raised.
I think it should be pretty clear at this point that you’re the one who wasn’t paying attention. Why do you assume that your fellow citizens are all as clueless as you are?
Frankly, most of them are. It appears that a good portion of the posters on this board are intelligent and informed on the matter, but the general public is a different matter.
A friend of mine, who is a professor at the local branch campus was appalled when he asked how many of his students regularly watched the national news or read a newspaper. Only a few hands went up out of a very large class. Only slightly more watched even the local news. This was not a class of teenagers, but adults who were trying to get a degree to advance their careers. (They did, however, loudly voice their opinions on policy matters, usually based on what a friend, their pastor, or a co-worker had told them.) It’s sad, but a lot of Americans don’t seem to realize what’s happening, unless it’s in their own backyard.
But if (1) there are good reasons to go to war, as toadspittle admits, and (2) the public, as supposedly clueless as they may be, are supportive of the war, then what’s the problem? I really can’t figure out what’s getting y’all’s drawers in a bunch here.
If a government is elected “By the people, for the people” then that government has a duty and responsibility to clearly lay out the facts at a level that the majority of the population understands when it comes to taking action that seriously affects the lives and well beings of it’s citizens. I believe that is what toadspittle is trying to say. And I agree that such clear, concise reasoning has not been brought forth to the American public, nor to any of the American Allies in order to gain their support for this supposedly UN endevour. If gWb could show proof that a war on Iraq though endangering many lives is a better alternative to letting the situation continue unabated then so be it. But be clear, be concise, and offer proof. The US Gov’t’s primary duty is the reponsibility to show it’s people that it is acting in their best interests, and backing it up with EVIDENCE.
Didn’t you read GWB’s speech that somebody linked to earlier? What is it with you all, you didn’t take your Ritalin today?
Yeah, well that’s pretty much what the Gov’t has been doing since this whole thing began. In fact, it’s in their best interest to do so. GWB has given 2 major speeches on this subject alone: one to the UN and to the whole world in Sept, and one to the nation in October. Both of these speeches were televised widely. Not to mention the countless speeches on the subject given at his many visits to various sites across the country.
They also spell out their position daily in the White House press conferences. How much further should they go to get the attention of people who obviously don’t care that much about it to begin with, except to piss and moan about it, of course.
There are two problems in this regard, as I see it. The first one, as Lissa pointed out, many folks don’t really care unless it affects their backyard. Plus, it seems lots of folks have the attention spans of a tse-tse fly nowadays. That is unfortunate. It is also, IMHO, borderline irresponsible. And, if your gonna bitch, but don’t know the facts, it’s also hypocritical. It is not, however, the Gov’ts fault.
The second, is the media. While most mainstream media will report the facts as laid out by the administration, they often do this too infrequently, and it is often diluted with their own sensationalism and hype. They inject into their broadcasts copious amounts of speculation and mis-information to further the sense of drama and fear. It keeps people watching, I guess. All major news networks are guilty of this.
It’s been brought forth to me. I’m a member of the American public. When GWB spelled it out, I made the decision to listen to what he had to say, that’s all. He’s the President, and this is a very serious issue. How much more reasoning than that do you need to pay attention to such matters?
Plus, this is a UN endeavor. However, if the UN disagrees, we have already voted in Congress that we will act alone if needed. We are, after all, the nation subject to the intense hatred of extremist. It is fortunate that the UN has us around to lend some credibility to their resolutions. They are apparently satisfied with the status quo despite their being completely disregarded by nations such as Iraq. That makes them a little impotent, I would say. But, we’ll do this alone, if need be. If extremists get their hands on big bad-ass weapons, who’s gonna be staring down the business end of such weapons? We will.
Well, again, he did this. Here is the speech to the UN, and here again is the one to the public. As far as evidence and proof, well those are two different things. There is no shortage of evidence. And I’m pretty sure its been proven that Iraq is not in compliance with the terms of the cease fire.