Majestyk

You know? For a board that continuously debunks the arguments from, believers of all types that disregard any other possible conclusions other than the conclusion that fits their personal prejudice, there are a lot of people disregarding any possible conclusions other than the conclusion that fits their own personal prejudice.

braces_for_impact

Well said Majestyk.

Loren Pechtel

Assuming his troops obeyed his orders and he was in a position to give them.

Also, he might be waiting until our troops are well into Iraq to keep us from going nuclear in retaliation.

leonarde

Once again, Iraq does not yet have nuclear weapons. If he did. then we should have done this before he got them. The WMDs in question are chemical and/or biological. And the CIA and all the other Western intelligence agencies believe he still has them. As he did in 1991, though he chose not to use them then.

Cheers!

capsaicin67

Very well-stated, Majestyk. A difficult point to articulate well. It's really tough to be very objective about emotionally charged issues. It's a rare quality when discussions amongst people anywhere are more interested in searching for the closest approximation of the truth than turning into polarized, ideological, shortsighted, self-serving [in the baser sense], pissing contests.

It's like the blind men and the elephant. I wouldn't trust most of the protestors in a position of power any more than I would the pro-Bush contingent. Wisdom is usually rare, non-quantifiable, and people have to want it and can't be taught it. Objectivity is a facet of wisdom, IMO. And when wisdom appears, it's usually not nearly as complete or ideal as we would like it. And when there are mutually exclusive truths to be found, then it takes really big people to find a higher road than simply to dig-in. And eventually real-life, concrete choices have to be taken on the slippery slope. With real-life consequences.

Life eventually makes hypocrites of us all. We live in, as Stephen Jay Gould said, an amoral and persistent universe. And most of us want to cram black and white ideals down it's grey throat. The toughest thing to do is figure out how we can live with that and correct for it as quickly as possible when we realize we are off course. And how can we try and have as much just-ness, and as little suffering in a universe that has no conscious interest in either, and few objective truths that do not have mutually exclusive counter-truths?

Most of the sources on the war both leading up to it and during get around to saying or doing something that I think emphasizes a bias. Not all the time, but generally. And much of the media in the US can be obnoxious. And there has been a general trend toward blurring entertainment/opinion with an attempt at actual journalism--without shame. Because it sells to the bulk of the people who are committed to believing their own shit and intellectual laziness. Qualities that Americans have no monopoly on, unfortunately.

If he had them he'd most likely have used them by now. If he doesn't use them in the next few days, he doesn't have any.

Regarding the WMD, I'm one of those people that doesn't think he'd use them this round because it would turn world opinion against the occupying regime. It's best and only bet for spinning their way out of a very tight spot. I believe they would acquire them as soon as they slipped the UN leash [and yes, I understand why everyone wants them], but there is no advantage to having them found or used right now.

Loren Pechtel

Consider, however, that in a world where everyone has WMD it comes down to how much damage one is willing to take to get what one wants. Thus victory goes to the most inhumane monsters.

Quetzal

It also may be worthwhile considering this tidbit: the US 7th Cav is racing at full speed across the Iraqi desert - basically attacking where no one is. The media keeps claiming that the unit is making an end run to Baghdad. I suppose that's possible, but what gives me pause is the fact that no matter how good 7th Cav is, one regiment isn't going to be able to take on or even effectively contain the 5 best armored formations in the Iraqi army - the five Republican Guards divisions deployed around Baghdad.

Now, on the assumption that at least at the operational level, the military commanders running the campaign aren't total idiots, they know Iraqi strength, capabilities and dispositions better than anyone and wouldn't assume that 7th Cav could pull off an attack on Baghdad by its lonesome. So wtf is it doing out there? My speculation is the intel types have identified one or more of the key chemical or biological weapons storehouses, and 7th Cav has been tasked to seize it. If so, that would provide a pretty good answer to the OP statement:

wdog

the 7th cav is just the lead regiment of the 3rd division, the other 2 are following. there are 2 rep. guard divisions in the way to bagdad, it is speculated that the 101st airborne will take on one of them. The actual hope is that they will surrender, but i think there is plenty of firepower to take them on.

Vorkosigan

The 7th Cav is backed by air, and can probably easily handle anything the Iraqis can throw at it. In fact, that may be its role, to draw Iraqi armor into the open where they can be killed from the air. I doubt it is racing to get WMDs.

Loren Pechtel

I suspect it's a matter of seizing territory. Isolate the various elements of the Iraqi army so that they can't reinforce and probably can't even communicate. That would facilitate the surrender of the elements thus cut off.

The impression that I get is that we are trying to make the only real fight be Baghdad and even then enough plinking might turn that into a big surrender.

I do agree about airpower--Iraq can't seriously threaten any reasonable force that's on the defensive. They would only be in danger if they were surrounded and we aren't going to allow that. A small force like that can't attack anything big but Saddam can't be strong everywhere.