I'm starting to think there might not be a war. .

[WillyJ]

I've been following the whole Iraq situation pretty close for the past few months, and like most people I've assumed it was just a matter of time before we took military action with or without UN sanction. . .

But in the past week or so there have been a few things that have made me think that maybe it's not going to happen after all. .


Rumsfeld changed a previous statement where he said he felt we'd go in even if Saddam was killed by his own people or agreed to abdicate and accept exile in another country, but Monday he offered both those things as scenarios where was could be avoided. . .

Then Tony Blair contradicted what President Bush said in his press conference last week and said he would be willing to push the March 17th deadline back on Iraq disarming, and although Rumsfeld made a remark about us not needing the UK to go forward, he later retracted it, and somehow I doubt Blair would have made that opinon public without discussing it first with Bush. . .

Then today this story made the news. . FBI probes fake papers on Iraq which basically says at least some of the information that led officials to think Iraq had tried to procure elements to produce nuclear weapons were falsified and may have been part of a disinformation campaign by a foriegn country. .


Now, there's nothing there that even hints the Bush administration knew about this or even used the one piece of information to bolster their claims Saddam has or has tried to develop nuclear weapons. . . and quite frankly I'm not sure if there's any truth behind it anyway. .

But what's interesting is that just like the CIA info floated out last week saying there was no proven link between Saddam and al-Qaida, this story being put out there by the FBI plus the other things makes me wonder if the Busah people aren't laying the foundation for agreeing to a multi-national force that would replace some of our troops and serve as a constant threat of military action should Saddam not continue destroying weapons and tries any nonsense like he has so many times before. . .


Intellectually I'd say the chance of us going into Iraq is still up around 99%. . . but my gut tells me that maybe just maybe that for the first time in months some other options are being seriously considered. . .

Just the opinon of one person (who watches waaaay to much news. . LOL!! )

 

[Michelle]

Willy, I pray that your hunch is correct.

 

[jamsmom]

That would be great! I am sure that the men and women would be more than willing to come back to their families

 

[fklhou]

Willy J

Nice post and you make some very excellant and preceptive points. I hope that you are correct in your assessment. Slate still has the chance of war at 99% up from 98% yesterday. I have also seen some interesting posts that Blair may face prosecution before the World Court if he goes to war without a second UN resolution. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2826331.stm Given the fact that Blair has truly stuck his neck out for the US, I would hate to see this happen to him. I know that this last position is strange in that I am against an unilateral invasion but it would not be fair for Blair to face criminal charges before the World Court for assisting the US when Bush would not have the same risk (the US is currently not subject to the jurisdiction of the World Court).

I saw some speculation that the Pope may speak to the UN at some point. In addition, the six undecided countries are floating some proposals that could be acceptable to everyone (including France-if there are doable milestones for Iraq to achieve that will further the disarming of Iraq, then even the French may support such a concept).

Again, while we are from different ends of the political spectrum, you and I agree on this area.

 

[bsnyder]

Hi Willy, from another fellow news junkie!

I have not watched the news or read anything online at all today, which is the first time in months that that has happened, and it was very refreshing!

But just a quick glance this evening and I found this:

March 13 — U.S. officials fear that once President Bush signals the U.S. is headed to war, Saddam Hussein will strike pre-emptively, administration sources told ABCNEWS.

But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself.
This new level of concern about Iraq is caused by an accumulation of intelligence including troubling new details that focus on three areas:

Specific new evidence indicates that Iraqi activity in the Western desert shows the strong likelihood Scud missiles are hidden there. These missiles could easily reach Israel carrying chemical or biological warheads which could draw Israel into any war.

Detailed new intelligence from the southern Iraqi oil fields shows that many of the 700 wells have now been wired with explosives. These explosives appear to be connected to a central command post, so Saddam could easily set the wells ablaze.

Near the border with Kuwait, where 135,000 U.S. troops are now stationed, recent surveillance indicates Iraqi artillery batteries have been moved dangerously close. The artillery is capable of firing shells filled with poison gas.

The United States is now considering moving against all three of these targets before any war begins in an effort to prevent Saddam from acting first, sources told ABCNEWS.

I notice that this report, like many others I've read, expresses concern that Saddam will use chemical and/or biological weapons against Allied troops and/or Israel.

Aren't these the weapons that he claims he doesn't have?

 

[Goofyposter]

I hear ya Willy....and you raise good points....however....it's my belief that we (the US) can't /won't ever 'pre position' this many troops/military assetts without using them.

for the record...I do believe that Sodamm Insane needs to 'go'...and while I never wish for war....I do personally believe this is justified by his own actions & non actions.

just my humble opinion.

 

[WillyJ]

Yeah Bet, the chemical/bio weapons are part of what's in dispute. .

And while I believe that's a posibility, it's still speculation at this point. .

But what isn't speculation is that the missiles he has started destroying in public were weapons he claimed he didn't have, so that he's a liar is beyond dispute. .


I agree 100% Saddam needs to go; but I also think the Bush administration is finally realizing how badly it has bungled this whole situation politically and are exploring ways to get that done without appearing to totally ignore the UN, because he will want to turn around and use them to assist with the North Korea situation. .

Just guessing on my part, but I'm definitely getting the sense there as been a shift in the "we're going forward no matter what" thinking. . .

 

[WillyJ]

Oh and Bet. . how did you do it???


I start getting shaky if I'm away from the TV more then a couple hours worrying I'm going to miss something!!!

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by WillyJ
Oh and Bet. . how did you do it???


I start getting shaky if I'm away from the TV more then a couple hours worrying I'm going to miss something!!!

ROTF, Willy! I know just what you mean!

But I did have my cell phone, and figured someone would call me if something truly earthshattering happened!

and lo and behold, I get home and find out it's more of the same old, same old! LOL!

On a more serious note, I lay the blame for most of the political bungling at the feet of France! I grow more outraged ever day at how they have back-stabbed us!

 

[Serena]

I hope you're right Willy.

 

[LIDisneyFan]

Willy,

From your mouth to God' ears.

I,too, believe Sadaam needs to go. And althgouh I don't like the idea of war, it seems that by bringing the first reslution last fall and giving credance to the process of using the UN, we bit ourselves in the butt.

Generalities like "Sadaam needs to prove he has disarmed" are impossible to achieve - you canoot prove you DON'T have something. The idea of benchmarks is a good one, and if given time (not a lot, but enough to be reasonable) the world would look more favorably on using force. Althgouh it would have been nice if any one of our leaders had though to put a definable, provable standard in place as part of the November resolution so that the rest of the security Council would have had something more factual to go on.

Do I believe Sadaam has WMD? Yes.
Do we have proof enough to go to war -not yet. But we need to get it. A stop with the rhetoric.

Just MHO

 

[wovenwonder]

I hope your right Willy! I also try to catch all the news -- even though I don't understand too much of it! We HAVE to do something -- and I honestly can't believe it's gone this long. BUT it doesn't stop me from worrying about our men and women overseas as well as the safety of the people at home if terrorism shows retaliation.

 

[caitycaity]

i sure hope you are right! in addition to saving lives, if we do go to war my industry will really be hit hard and i would imagine there will be additinal layoffs.