« note to toren | Main | prepare for tomorrow's post »

slow boat to denial

U.S.: Iraq Plans Scorched-Earth Strategy

Iraq is preparing to destroy its own oil fields, food supplies and power plants and blame America for the devastation in the event of war, U.S. intelligence officials said Wednesday.

Attention all purveyors of peace and handshakes and appeasement: your boat to denial land is now leaving. Please board immediately.

Saddam has been preparing for a war with the United States and its British allies since the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.

Anyone who still believes that Saddam is not a threat to us or his own people is either a complete idiot or should lay off the peace pipes.

If you read the whole article (and I'm in too pissy of a mood to sit here and quote the whole thing line by line) you will see where Saddam has put us.

He obviously has weapons. Only a fool does not believe that. And he intends to use them. The thing is, we lose either way. If we invade, he deploys everything he has against his own people. If we don't invade, he employs everything he has against us, eventually. A leader does not collect biological and chemical warfare just to say he has them. If you produce these weapons, it's because you intend to use them.

Heads out of your asses, folks. We are fucked no matter what we do - or don't do.


I still say NO!
I still think we can send representatives from PETA and/or French Diplomats to reason with Saddam.

If, oh, they end up being eviscerated, dipped in acid, or be guinea pigs to test his latest Sarin gas/Ebola virus concoctions... well, darn it, at least we tried. GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!

PS: Have you seen the latest Doonesbury cartoons with the (radioactive) Iraqui yogurt factory?

1."U.S. intelligence officials said Wednesday."
I'm not about to believe what Saddam says, and not really sure I can trust everything "US Intelligence" says.
But this is my favorite-
"A leader does not collect biological and chemical warfare just to say he has them. If you produce these weapons, it's because you intend to use them."
I was watching a guy on Fox defend US stockpile of bio/chem/nuke arms, and I was thinking the same thing. We don't just have these weapons to deter others from attacking us, as he claimed.If we produce those weapons, it's because we intend to use them. Bush even said so recently regarding Iraq.
Saddam shouldn't have such weapons, agreed--but should anybody?
Why not disarm North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, India and Israel too? Then we could be the only ones who intend to use them!!

If Saddam were allowed to build nukes, he would use them; most likely to attempt to try to realize the nazi-terrorist dream of eradicating Isreal off the map--he already wholesale sponsors terrorism, paying terrorists to blow up innocent Isrealis. One way or the other, he has to go. It's deal with him now or deal with a nuclear armed Saddam later, a Saddam, who unlike other countries with nukes, will use them.

Sorry, but we're fucked if we do -- not as fucked if we don't at the moment. Why is it, Michele, that anyone who is against the war has their heads up their asses?

Hussein didn't bring down the Towers. I want THOSE fuckers first. Then we can worry about the tin-plated dick in Baghdad. We have him sewn up tighter than a virgin in a chastity belt -- nothing's going to get in or out of that country.

he "obviously" has weapons? Then why can't we find them? Why is there not one shred of evidence given to the American people by their leader to prove this?

I'm all for knocking the dick-tater off his perch. He's evil, and he must be destroyed. He's a convicted murderer, attempted genocide and funds terror across the Middle East. The guy is a freakin' fruitcake of the highest order and needs to be removed.

But I'm sick and tired of hearing Shrub say "just trust us" when asked for proof. He doesn't have it folks. Even JFK gave pictures from "super secret" spy plane when faced with ICBM's planted 90 miles from our coast. No national security concerns there, just tellin' the plain truth...

The other big question I have is what happens after we destory Saddam and a good part of Iraq? Where is the plan for democatization? Where is the Marshall Plan for Iraq? ...

Er, Um... Er, Ummm.....

So we are through with Saddam.. Then what? Korea? China? Pakistan? All have W-M-D (as does France, which worries me even more than Iraq) Do we feel the need to go after ALL these guys because they are a threa to "the people"

Heads up folks, all this means is that we'll be in this for a LONG, L-O-N-G time, and it's you and I that will be paying the tab. In blood and in cash.... You heard it hear first. If we go to war in January, I'd bet dollars to do-nuts that we'll have suicide bombers in US cities by spring.....

Ducking and running for cover......

bit by bit.

First, they're not handing out concrete evidence for a reason. Have kids? If so, you know the reason.

Pointing out this evidence will do one of two things.

It will allow him to hide, alter or otherwise avoid being caught or

It will give away how you found out.

See? So they're not gonna say a damned thing until its to our advantage--and they're certainly not going to say it to a press that feels that front-page descriptions of our troop movements are valid news.

Second, going after Al-qaeda singlemindedly is a waste of resources. We can do more than search for the residue of Bin Laden

Third, We can have WMDs because we're the good guys. Define 'good guys' as a nation whose inhabitants are not fleeing to other nations while being forcibly kept here.

When Americans citizens start emigrating en masse to....oh, say France, for a start, THEN you can whine about how horribly oppressed we all are.

Fourth, Damned if we do and damned if we don't. No we're not. Contrary to popular belief we're not going to Iraq to 'save' the Iraqi people--that's just a happy side effect of regime change. We're going there to get rid of a lunatic who thinks nothing of terrorizing the world to insure that he gets to call himself the grand poobah (or is that caliph). As long as we accomplish our objectives without targeting ACTUAL non-combatants we hold the moral high ground

and that, as they say, is that

Suicide bombers tend to strike when thereís a possibility of gaining concessions Ė at least, thatís what the leaders of Hamas have said.

I think that, the longer we wait, the more the possibility of random attacks, street protests and threats will increase. Terrorists are more likely to take action before the war, because concessions are more likely, than they would be once the war starts. Angry street protests and threats increased before the war in Afghanistan, and decreased during and afterwards.

But thatís just my guess. There are strategic reasons for attacking Iraq that donít apply to N. Korea, China, or even France, so I hope that we wouldnít follow that course. Since one of the goals of this war is to cut off the huge amount of money flowing from Iraq and Saudi Arabia to terrorist organizations like Hamas, war could decrease the likelihood of terrorist attacks. At least, that seems to be the plan. Terrorism isn't inspired by desperation and the desire for revenge. It's a military tactic inspired by a heavy flow of cash.

"We can have WMDs because we're the good guys"

Is that some UN mandate I've never heard of?
Iraq used to be kinda Good Guys during their war with Iran, so we gave them what they now attempt to hide. The Taleban were kinda Good Guys when Bush gave them 43 mil before 9/11,
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered Good Guys despite the fact that the entire world knows they are terrorist-friendly regimes.
The civilians of Iraq certainly don't consider themselves Bad Guys........I tend to think the US is Good for the most part, but wouldn't say Squeeky Clean either.
The same could be said about Israel.
Us Good Guys get to pick and choose who the Bad Guys are, justified or not, and that's bound to cause animosity, and increase the DESIRE to have those weapons to protect themselves from being labelled a Bad Guy and attacked. Vicious circle indeed.
Maybe once we're done disarming everybody, we should disarm ourselves as well.

"Saddam, who unlike other countries with nukes, will use them."
A personal guarantee? We can trust that Pakistan, India, Russia, Israel, North Korea, will never use those weapons?
Or that the US won't use them again?
We used them right after we invented them.
True, they were used to end a war, but the point is we used them, and will use them again, as Bush has suggested.

Sorry, one last one here-
"Contrary to popular belief we're not going to Iraq to 'save' the Iraqi people"

I don't know anybody who believes that at all. I give Americans more credit for intelligence than that.

Sylvain, regardless of whether the U.S. government is motivated by concern for the Iraqi people, deposing Saddam and establishing a decent government in his place will benefit them enormously, as well as benefitting the people of all other countries in the region.

So does this mean nobody likes my idea of shipping PETA members in to annoy Saddam?

Did I imply otherwise, Dan?
Depose Saddam-that should be the extent of it. Or at least let the Iraqi people choose the replacement, not the US. We can help them rebuild and advise them along the way, but I don't think we should Karzai them, might just bring more resentment.
Take Saddam out and give them back their country...assist but don't govern. That should set a great example that we are not Empirialists, I think.

Sylvain, the greatest example that the US isn't Imperialistic is the undisputed fact that we haven't occupied the rest of the world and milked it dry. Same answer as with the WMDs: we could have, but we haven't.

You are what you do, and our actions show that we're the "good guys" -- and Saddam's have shown that he's one of the worst of the bad. As for the rest, well... their turn's coming. We've evicted the Taliban and decimated al Qa'ida, and we're moving on to the next domino.

Just watch.

hey, did we ever get that 43 mil back from the Taliban? What a rip.
I think "occupied" can have various subtle definitions.
We have bases in every country, that's "occupation", right or not-so-right.
" we haven't occupied the rest of the world and milked it dry"

....yet. Bush has only been in office 2 years. Geez. We'll see where we're at in 6, because I do believe Prescott's Grandson will be re-elected (or "re-appointed", if you prefer).

wait.........when did we "decimate al-Qaeda"??
We all done with those guys, then? No more cells?
Also--would the Taliban have been evicted if 9/11 never happened, given the fact that Bush DID give them 43 mil?

Sylvain, you're clearly ignoring much of the information that's out there. Between a third and half of al Qa'ida's leadership is dead or imprisoned, and they haven't managed to carry out a significant strike against the US since that infamous 9/11; google a bit, you'll find it.

As for "bases in every country", you're dreaming. We have bases in quite a few, but that's hardly "occupation" -- hell, just look at Germany and tell me that country's "occupied". I very seriously doubt that they, or any other nation, will give any credence to your definition of the word "occupied".

You're being ingenuous at best. I don't mind having discussions, but I do expect to argue with people who use standard, recognized definitions in English.

And as for your vague and inflamatory intimations regarding Bush 43, all I can say is this: Get. A. Life. And quickly -- obviously have far too much free time on your hands...