War against Iraq -- “inevitable?!”

[Shodan]

(If Saddam Hussein)
“fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous
third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his
program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude
that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of
devastating destruction.”

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

– Bill Clinton, February 18, 1998.

[Scylla]

On the one hand I’m not too crazy about just going in and blowing the shit out of the country and toppling a regime before they’ve done anything.

On the other hand, I strongly believe Saddam either has, or is very close to having weapons of mass destruction, and that once he does he will surely use them on either us, or our interests, or he may share the technology or simply give weapons to a fanatical third party, and let them use them.

[elucidator]

Its the conflict of the tiger and the cobra.

If the cobra bites the tiger, the tiger will die, but not before he tears the cobra to shreds. Conversely, if the tiger attacks, he will surely kill the cobra. But not without getting bit.

Goddam Saddam has been sitting on his hands for ten years now, while the allies humiliate him with no-fly zones, etc. The WarHawks would dearly love an “incident”, and he thus far has avoided providing one. If he is crazy enough to risk getting nuked from here to Pluto, he could use any of a number of scenarios. Lobbing a missile at Tel Aviv, for instance.

Apparently, he is sane enough to know that.

The difference between “premptive war” and “agressive war” is small enough to fit in a bankers heart, and leave room for two mustard seeds as well.

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Why should we believe a known liar?

PRESIDENT MISSTATES ‘FACTS’
In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.
Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad’s development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

Does our administration have any credibility left on this subject? Our administration can plausibly be called a nest of liars, manipulators, and political whoring scaremongers.

Agreeing to ‘believe’ in evidence that doesn’t exist, from known liars and political opportunists, that we should go alone to war, a war which all worldly sane analysis suggests would turn the region into a cauldron, and cause the very destruction we puport to stop is beyond ludicrous. What is the difference between these lapsed members of what we so riotously term “Democracy” who insanely “believe” in this administration’s personal Jihad, and the insane adherents of Osama Bin Laden’s Jihad?

I believe the difference at this point is that Osama’s Jihad has more international backing.

[Apos]

It’s interesting: people here generally seem to agree that Ritter has no credibility. But if we conclude that, I find it rather hard to justify assigning any credibility to the Bush team either, given its proven perchance for disinformation (even with Rumsfield suggesting last September that sometimes it was neccessary to leak false information to confuse the enemy… but what about us, the public?). Remember the troops massing on the border of SA during the Gulf War, proving that Saddam was an expansionist threat beyond just Kuwait? Don’t remember that anymore:

In war, some facts less factual

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

I haven’t seen any agreement on the Ritter question. I think the only agreement was that neither side has impeccable credibility.

[Ace_Face]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**It’s interesting: people here generally seem to agree that Ritter has no credibility. But if we conclude that, I find it rather hard to justify assigning any credibility to the Bush team either, given its proven perchance for disinformation (even with Rumsfield suggesting last September that sometimes it was neccessary to leak false information to confuse the enemy… but what about us, the public?). Remember the troops massing on the border of SA during the Gulf War, proving that Saddam was an expansionist threat beyond just Kuwait? Don’t remember that anymore:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html **

Good point. Any reasonably educated media consumer should expect more of this to come (sadly). Not to “confuse the enemy” – to confuse the public. If the “nuclear capabilities” pretext isn’t up to snuff expect to see some variant of the “babies torn from their incubators!” story. Then look for the slimy tentacles of the PR industry.

[carnivorousplant]

Is the concept here that we should do a Pearl Harbor because the dishonor outweighs the possibility of having our citizens killed in one way or another by Iraqis?