Yeah, but by that line of reasoning we should establish a pax americana so that no one, ever, would be in a position to attack us.
And that’s really not what America is about. At least it’s not what mine is about.
Nah, Cheney doesn’t know that kind of stuff.
Unfortunately, it’s what the current administration (or the PNAC part of it, which seems like “most”) is about.
Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Project for the New American Century, September 2000.
Can you see why us furreners are a bit concerned about the current administration, and rather opposed to its adventurism…?
Oh, no doubt on my end. They’ve got to go.
Oh, horseshit. If **Bluesman[/b[ knew anything we’d fucking know it too. This administration is desperate to announce the finding of WMD’s. They have no interest in keeping any such knowledge a secret. The WMD’s don’t exist and Bluesman was talking out of his ass.
Now go ahead and accuse me of wanting him to die, or not appreciating his efforts to “protect me” (from what, I have no idea).
I don’t want him to die and I really don’t care about his work in Iraq one way or the other. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with protecting the US and had nothing the fuck to do with 9/11. It’s not my fault that a corrupt administration sent to him off to the desert for no reason. I wish that no one had been sent there.
He may know. In fact he claimed to know, and made some very confident statements based on this supposed knowledge, as well as some very critical remarks about other people’s attitude to this war.
None of these statements have come true, so I think it’s perfectly fair to post a question about them. Does that seem reasonable to you?
They mustn’t buy shit. Since the WTC tragedy has been brought up: what WMD’s were used, exactly, to bring the two towers down?
Are there instances of, say, Al Queda using WMD’s on a large scale? The 1993 WTC bombing was conventional, IIRC. The 2001 tragedy was unconventional, but no WMD’s were used.
I’m not saying that there is NO connection between Al Queda and the late Saddam regime. But it’s gueswork at this stage, and certainly no basis for a war. My gut feeling says that Saddam’s secular regime didn’t have significant ties with Al Queda.
Which is worth about about as much as your gut feeling, I suppose.
Coldfire, WTC/Pentagon did not use WMD. That is clear. They did not need any assistance from a despotic tyrant to accomplish that attack, in my opinion. To top that attack, a WMD sure would be good way to do it.
There are no instance that I am aware of of Al-Queda using WMD. It is not publicly known. There ARE secrets that can be held in certain agencies for whatever reasons. Secrets that do not hit the papers for 40 years or so.
You mean besides the screams?
No, quite frankly, it does not. You and all of the other bleeding heart idiots on these boards demand full and complete disclosure of every singles fact, scrap of paper, reasoning and guess made by the armed forces the second they come to light. Geraldo Rivera must be your hero. I can think of a dozen resons for evidence of WMD to be kept on the QT. Suppose evidence of WMD was found along with a evidence that some or all of them had been transfered to a hostile foreign government or terrorist organization and the info is being held while this evidence is investigated? ( I have no proof that this is the case, it was just the first thing that came to mind ) The war has been over for a month, a month in which people like you have been screaming that our #1 priority has to be to restore civil order in Iraq, and now you scream because 10 ICBMs haven’t been paraded before your 5 second attantion span to “justify” the war. If, one year from now, no WMD have been found, I’ll be the first to stand up and declare that you were 100% correct. Until then, piss off.
Oh, that’s certainly true.
But if it has to be kept secret so much, why then use it as a reason to go to war? Clearly, the GWB administration has no problems with using unsubstantiated claims as reasons to go to war (the Al Queda - Iraq connection, for example, is as of yet unsubstantiated). Why toss an unsubstantiated claim out if the topic is so sensitive it has to be kept secret, because you know for a fact that -say- Syria is now storing those WMD’s that used to belong to Hussein, and it is vital that the latter part of that claim is to kept secret?
It’ll only get you criticism, and it might hinder your other operation, namely to get the new offending nation to give up its WMD’s.
I think GWB et al just bluffed about the WMD’s, convinced they’d find at least enough evidence to substantiate their claim in hindsight. And that’s not even an unreasonable assumption, especially if you’re convinced that the UN weapons inspectors weren’t (or were obstructed from) doing their job properly. Thing is, if the evidence fails to show, your bluf gets called.
I’m not sure why Weirddave suggests the arbitrary limit of one year as a deadline at which evidence is to be shown, but the many false alarms we’ve seen since the end of the war (including claims of a WMD site that turned out to be already documented by Blix et al) indicate that the coalition is clutching at straws, and losing grip.
I suppose that there may be reasons to not reveal actual evidence of the only reason we claimed we were going to war (in violation of the U.N. Charter and a couple hundred years of U.S. tradition), but it is certainly suspicious when just over a month after the end of the war, we appear to be giving up and telling the U.S. weapons team to leave Iraq.
On the other hand, there is still “hope”: Another Possible Mobile Bioweapons Lab Found in Iraq.
It will be interesting to see what the captured chemical scientists have to say.
Currently in the pit I’m being accused of anti-semitism and bleeding heart tendencies. Guess I must be one of the bleeding heart liberal anti-semites you hear about so much these days.
Anyway, where was? Oh yeah, back to Fucko the Clown’s ranting…
Lets see Dave, after due consideration of your proposal, I must decline. May I counter suggest you go fuck yourself? Have fun now.
Anyone with such a senior position in a goverment administration or organisation who actually knew something really important relating to military matters or security issues wouldn’t - or shouldn’t - be dropping stupid little hints on a public noticeboard.
People truly in the know (probably like Ana’s sibling) don’t talk about their work. They don’t refer to it, they don’t hint at it, they don’t take questions on it. Because doing so jeopardises themselves and the very people they are working for. Which in the case of classifed military information would be the population of the country of that military.
So anyone dropping sad little hints about stuff they “know” is usually so far out of the centre circle they may as well be on Pluto. And if not, they’re as bad as a traitor and should be shot.
istara, if you alter that last sentance to “…should be fired and criminally charged.” I’d agree 100%
SDMB is a great place, but it isn’t supposed to be a place to drop hints about your countries classified information.
I recall no “little hints” beyond the statement that he knew things, and there was a legitimate reason to go to war. He mentioned no locations, installations, descriptions of delivery systems, type of weapons, names, color, shapes or sizes. No DETAILS. That does not approach Treason in this country, either Militarily or Constitutionally. You are talking out of your ass, istara.
Coldfire,
You may be right. Time will probably tell.
UncleBill, try this thought experiment: you have sensitive information, and you let that fact slip on this board. Not the information itself, but just that you have it. Do you doubt that there are people with the ability to determine your identity and track you down? I don’t – I’ve seen it done.
It’s not treason, but I don’t think it is wise.
Well the US, Clinton’s presidency excluded, didn’t exactly step up to the plate to help stop terrorism in Ireland either, did it?
Because I know that he does not wish to publicly name the agency he works for, I will not. Suffice it to say that he is privy to information that he can not share. He does not give details or ‘stupid little hints’.