Politics: J'accuse!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I have been having this thought as well. It would seem far easier to attempt to break up Iraq into at least 3 countries (Shia, Sunni, and Kurd), but as I recall the Turks do not want a separate Kurdish country for fear it would cause an uprising of their own Kurdish population.

The Turks view an independent Kurdistan as a threat to their existence. They have invaded (or encroached upon) the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq many times since the 1992 end of the Gulf War in pursuit of the PUK, etc. They have some forces now in Northern Iraq. They have said that, if the Kurds declare an independent state, they will invade and occupy it. The Kurdish leaders say: "Hey, we don't need no independent state. (now)"

I think the Turks are quite serious, and that we could only prevent said attack by physically defeating them. That would "cause serious problems" in NATO. Turkey is the only Muslim country which truly has good relations with Israel. We don't want to screw any of that up.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Sunnis would be left without oil. That's a prescription for stability right there.

It keeps them safe from invasion, at least.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Obviously, the whole rationale for the war has been vindicated by the discovery of an old artillery shell with sarin in it. Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States, and a link to Islamist terrrorists surely is not far behind. Whether or not we establish a stable regime there, let alone a democracy, is really besides the point now that they found this artillery shell. It's a big day for the United States, but, more importantly, a really big day for the White House.

Bush Lied!!! Bush Lied!!! Bush Lied!!!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hmmm. Can a middle east country be sucessful w/o oil revenues? Can anyone think of a country that built a stong economy without any oil?

Japan. Culture so different I can't imagine how you'd make comparisons. (Unless you envision us maybe occupying, governing, and rebuilding an oil-free "Central Iraqi Republic" for about 20 years.)

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

This kind of says it all:



That's the daughter of the lead plaintiffs in Goodridge. She is attending a wedding today.

At least in Massachusetts, this is being treated as a happy day all the way around.

About a half dozen protesters from Kansas accompanied Mr. Phelps last night in Cambridge.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Good morning, Ty. Soooooo, what do you think of the WMDs in Iraq?

I think its a good thing it was just a tiny bit of sarin. We've known for years that Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam had been working on WMD outside of Saddam's zone of control.

Now, you tell me where it was made, and when it entered the country -- and we can have a conversation. Your Syria theory doesn't make much sense. As I said -- we killed Uday and Qusai after Syria expelled them. I think its very unlikely that Syria would have agreed to "hold Saddam's stash" for him. If they did, I'd bet they destroyed it by now.

There is no way that keeping those WMD would be good for Syria. Plus, they don't need it, they have their own CW.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
This kind of says it all:



That's the daughter of the lead plaintiffs in Goodridge. She is attending a wedding today.

At least in Massachusetts, this is being treated as a happy day all the way around.

About a half dozen protesters from Kansas accompanied Mr. Phelps last night in Cambridge.

Meanwhile, the children of polygamists are still stigmatized by society's refusal to legally recognize their parent's unions.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Now, you tell me where it was made, and when it entered the country -- and we can have a conversation. S_A_M

the reports I read imply it was in an old artillary shell, but one without markings. that is it did not seem to be a fresh-made shell. That said, I agree with Ty, finding 1 old shell is not finding "WMD."

Question to the Dems- how many do we have to find before we did find them? 10/20/100?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think its a good thing it was just a tiny bit of sarin. We've known for years that Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam had been working on WMD outside of Saddam's zone of control.

The analysts that I have heard speak about this indicate that they think the insurgents have these from SH's stash but just didn't realize that they have the chemical weapons. Apparently, the shells are not marked any differently than those that don't contain the sarin.

Based on the shell, they are estimating its date of manufacture to the 1980's. According to the reports, it looks to be Iraqi made.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Meanwhile, the children of polygamists are still stigmatized by society's refusal to legally recognize their parent's unions.

Cite, please. Everyone knows the children of polygamists are so hot.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

The New Yorker has posted another long Syemour Hersh article on the Abu Ghraib situation here.

The lion's share of the insights seem to be sourced to a couple of anonymous former intel people, so I don't think anyone would be well-served taking all of this as gospel without knowing the sources' gruntle level or the general circumstances of their leaking what purports to be pretty inside stuff. However, I do think the article is pretty interesting* in its description of the relationships between Gitmo and the prior efforts at interrogating AQ prisoners on the one hand and the efforts at applying those methods to help stop the Iraq insurgency on the other. Also I found it rather intriguing to better understand why the DoD chose this heretofore obscure Cambone fellow to be the official to contradict Taguba's understanding as to who was in charge of Abu Ghraib during his testimony before the Senate armed services committee.


* Hank, I actually mean "interesting" here, rather than "I hope this is true". YMMV.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the reports I read imply it was in an old artillary shell, but one without markings. that is it did not seem to be a fresh-made shell. That said, I agree with Ty, finding 1 old shell is not finding "WMD."

What if there are hundreds of these?

Don't forget that Saddam's army was equiped with chemical protection gear. Do you think they were equiped with that because they thought we were going to use chemical weapons against them? Or do you think they were equiped like that to protect themselves if they used the chemical weapons?

[confidential to Hank]We could find 4000 of them and the Dems would still dismiss this as no big deal.[/confidential to Hank]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
Meanwhile, the children of polygamists are still stigmatized by society's refusal to legally recognize their parent's unions.

So file your case already.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite, please. Everyone knows the children of polygamists are so hot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the reports I read imply it was in an old artillary shell, but one without markings. that is it did not seem to be a fresh-made shell. That said, I agree with Ty, finding 1 old shell is not finding "WMD."

Question to the Dems- how many do we have to find before we did find them? 10/20/100?

I believe the rule of thumb on justifying invasion is that any one WMD actually capable of Mass Destruction is sufficient (i.e., one nuclear warhead is sufficient), or, alternatively, a number of WMD capable of killing at least as many civilians outside the borders or Iraq as are killed within the borders as a result of the invasion.

Generally, one good sized stockpile of just about anything would suffice.