Rumsfeld Says We're Going To War ANYWAY!

by SYN 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SYN

  "On a November 14 radio call-in show, Donald Rumsfeld was asked what would happen if UN weapons inspectors failed to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and whether or not that let Hussein off the hook. Rumsfeld's response was that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and if the inspectors didn't find them, it was because Iraq had successfully sabotaged the investigation. Then, when asked what the consequence of that action would be, Rumsfeld deferred to President Bush's statement that if Hussein would not disarm willingly, 'the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein.'

  "If you eliminate the possibility that weapons inspectors find nothing, but the Iraqi government apologizes anyway and starts a disarmament process (a pretty safe bet), the logical conclusion from Rumsfeld's statements seems to be 'if the weapons inspectors find nothing, we're going in anyway.' 'Accordingly, Rumsfeld downplayed the consequences of such a war, claiming that the "use of force in Iraq [might last] five months, but it won't last any longer than that.' A full transcript of the interview is available courtesy of the Department of Defense. If Rumsfeld's intent is to ask Saddam, in essence, to prove a negative, is it time to start those 'countdown to invasion' clocks?"

  Original link.

  So what do you guys think of that statement? Seems a bit vindictive, doesn't it?

  [SYN], Don't Shoot The Messenger, Give Him A Box Of Chocolates Class.
• 

  Pathofthorns

  The scenario that you present is one that has intrigued me for some time now. The US NEEDS a war and they need it to be legitimate. Their economy and political reputation, as well as the war on terrorism are counting on it.

  But what if Sadaam cooperates fully and what if there are no weapons of mass destruction or if there are, these are declaired and destroyed? As bad as Sadaam is, I doubt the US will find support beyond their own boarders to "go to war anyway" if this happens.

  The US is in a difficult position at the moment. I think a bigger fear for US politicians than Sadaam having weapons of mass destrucion is Sadaam NOT having weapons of mass destruction.

  Path
• 

  Realist

  that's once again proof that the US government is full of shit.
• 

  Shakita

  All the people "in the know" will tell you that Saddam does indeed have WPM's.

  Saddam had them when the inspectors left 4 years ago. What makes you think Saddam has destroyed his only means of "hold" on the entire Arab world. The Arabs don't even like this maniac. That is why Syria backed the resolution for the inspectors to return.

  A must read is "The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq" by Kenneth M. Pollack. He is one of the world's leading experts on Iraq. He spent 15 years as an analyst on Iraq for the CIA. He presents the argument for war as follows: "war is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things." Saddam is a relatively young dictator. If given the time, he will indeed acquire the nuclear weapons he so desires. If he doesn't have them already. He will use them. He has gassed his own people. What makes you think he would nuke his most hated enemy! If he gets the opportunity, he will kill millions of people and hold the economy of the world in the palm of his hand.

  The question is "not if Saddam has WPM's", but, "when will we go to war to rid Iraq of WPM's."

  Mrs. Shakita
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  So tell me, why then, the head of the CIA, thinks it's a bad idea, to go to war with Iraq? He should be in the know, wouldn't you think?
• 

  Shakita

  Hi TH:

  What did the head of the CIA say?

  Sorry if I don't get back to you now, I have to leave for work. Be back later.

  Mrs. Shakita
• 

  gumby

  Path,

  The US NEEDS a war and they need it to be legitimate. Their economy and political reputation, as well as the war on terrorism are counting on it.

  If this were just one of the reasons the US went to war, this would speak horribly for the US. I can see war for the safety of innocent people....but for one of these other reasons would be insane. This would bring much protest as was done in the sixtys with Viet Nam were the US to war for the reasons path mentioned. If the US went to war for this reason......I could see WHY other nations hate us and think were bullies.
• 

  hawkaw

  The only reason why we are not at war right now is the politics or optics of the situation. Bush 43 did not have the support of a majority of Americans in most polls to go to war alone. However, polls showed that if he and his "hawks" went to the UN and did a "tango" at the UN, a majority of the American people would accept the war. Powell convinced Bush of this some time ago.

  One always has to remember optics. Back in August, Bush 43 was concerned about the economy and rightly so. Retirement 401 K plans were in the toilet and people always like to blame the leaders and the party in power. The Bush team needed diversions to keep the American people occupied and not notice their 401 K plans. Iraq and the so-called war on terror worked like a charm. Add a couple of snipers in DC and a Democratic party with no message and the Bush team did better than even his political advisors thought.

  But the problem is that Bush 43 is now into a show down and a majority of the American people are now in the mind set of war.

  The problem I see with this whole thing is that USA and UK war planes have been fired upon with SAMs some 34 times since UN resolution was passed this month. Clear violations of the UN resolutions and it should be enough to go to war. I don't understand what the hell we are waiting for? I know the specialist troops and CIA are already on the ground. The only thing I can figure is Bush 43 needs more UTM/GPS bombs made at the Boeing factory.

  I hate war and I think this one is wrong. I believe there is a number of huge ways the Americans and its allies can keep this and other dictators at bay. I look to France, Russia and Germany and their disgusting eagerness to start dealing with Iraq a few years ago and a preoccupied President Clinton. Should never ever have happened and they need to pick up the ball at the UN but not in a war. I still look at Afganistan and I still do not see an exit strategy for American and other Allied troops. I now look at Iraq and say to myself, well we invade another country and how long are we staying there????

  Most disagree with me and thus, we are now set to go to war in Iraq. However, when it happens which will likely be in less than a month, I will support the Canadian, American, UK and other troops that will go after the Iraq government. I wish them the best and I hope few (on both sides) die.

  BTW Trauma Hound the current head of the CIA supports a combined effort to attack Iraq and has his operatives already on the ground - you should know that. If the CIA Director didn't, he would have resigned by now. I believe this Director thinks the Governments should focus more on the terrorists than Iraq but will support any invasion. Why would he say that Trauma Houund? Well the Director needs budget dollars and programs to keep the CIA strong. Terrorists give a bigger budget and more power to the CIA. Wars give power to Generals and not CIA directors. Thus, what would you say if you ran the CIA Trauma Hound.

  hawk

  p.s. - my handle came from the way I used to track baseballs down in the field and is not war related.