Skip to comments.The Iraq Connection
Posted on 10/17/2001 9:09:06 PM PDT by Pokey78Edited on 04/23/2004 12:03:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Attack Saddam? It may be one of the most momentous choices of the 21st century.
The professionally prepared and precisely sized anthrax spores that have infected some 30 congressional staffers and closed down the Capitol and the office of the governor of New York have made the point forcefully: When you are at war, the primary task should be to determine whom you are at war with.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Possibility? Is he kidding?
It is called the "Clinton Doctrine", defined as NARCISSISM
It is clear that after we are done in Afganistan we will have to take out Saddam. the only question is the means that will be employed to do that. So far the anthrax attacks have been pinpricks to use up resources and keep attention diverted from what I think will be the actual attack. If I knew what that attack was going to be or when then I would say so.
The fact that our dealing with Iraq will come after we finish taking out the taliban and what remains of Al Qarda in Afganistan may well provide us with the will to use all means at our disposal to eliminate forever any threat from Iraq. I am of the opinion that Iraq developed the bio weapons being used against us. When this is confirmed it is then incumbent upon the United States of America to massively retailiate against Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. in short nuclear weapons should be used against bagdad, basra and any other population center of Iraq. Every vestage of military power the current Iraqi government has should be vaporized. since this will leave a rather large number of petroleum facilities with no human near them the US should then permanently take over those facilities and use that petroleum first.
While some might bring up the difficulties of occupying Iraq they are obviously not understanding there is no problem occupying unoccupied land. We also may well reap envirornmental benefits from such a plan as we would have a number of glass bottomed craters in which to dump waste.
Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown
The other, less generous possibility is that the Clinton administration was engaged here in its trademark behavior of focusing first and foremost on spin, expectation-adjustment, and short-term public relations, and deriving policy therefrom. If you assume that all terrorism flows from loose networks and not state action, then you will usually be able to find at least someone who was involved in a terrorist attack to convict. You can then claim success, get some good press and avoid confronting a state. The alternative approach--a thorough search for any state actor--presents two PR risks, neither attractive. If you find no state actor, there might be the appearance of an investigative failure. If, on the other hand, you find that a state was involved, you might then risk confrontation, even conflict, and possibly body bags on the evening news.Yes, but there are risks involved in any war. People are going to die; there is no question about that. The alternative is doing nothing or doing so little - taking a few guys down - that the whole war process becomes meaningless and not only would embolden the terrorists but we would face far greater attacks.