Shots Across The Bow

Very clever ;)

Nice! You forgot to include that the money order could be in a moving automobile or boat :)

One more thing: Tell me where it is or I'll shoot you.

I think i see how to win this game :-)

Yes, that was an analogy !!!

Can we interview the bankteller who issued the money order?

Just a few questions about the contest...

Did you get the $100 from any of the searchers? Do we have access to 24 hour monitoring of the whole of Knoxville in order to track your every move and when you go to work can we cry foul and say you're moving the $100?
If we spot you with 45 cents can we say you have moved the $100 and demand that everyone help us to run into your house and take all of your possessions?
Is there a chance that you will take the $100 and spend it something to deter one of your neighbors who are busily taking over another of your neighbors' house by slowly starving them out or just flat out killing them?
If we find out that someone we KNOW (or can, at least, allege)had $100 at one time or another walking around in your house, can we use that as an excuse to break down your door and kill you and take all your possessions?
And lastly, can we eventually just plant $100 dollars somewhere and say we found it and now we can come and take all your possessions?

Just curious...

: )

I'm new, I hope I didn't offend.

I'm game!

Okay..I know that you actually have this money order, but I can't say any more than that or the terrorists win the scotch. Bubba's aerial photos show where it is, but I can't tell you any more than that or I'd have to kill you.

Now, all you other RTB members have to take my word for it that I know where it is because I am on the side of Good (not to mention God).

And anyone who wants further proof than my word is a cheese-eating surrender bluetick hound who no doubt collaborated with you to hide it in the first place, lo those many years ago.

That $100 money order may, of course, have been weaponized converted into the form of single malt whiskey for around $20.

Beware, searchers! That $100 is actually invested in several banks, and the longer it takes to find it, it will keep drawing interest and growing...growing...growing.........

Will you give better intelligence than Bush and Co. did to the UN Inspectors to help find it?

BTW, 13 miles without guidence systems, which without the missle is about as accurate as a snub nose 38 from a couple thousand meters.

Bjorn, you can interview the teller, but only in the presence of my father, and only after I've had a long talk with her, telling her I know where her children are.

Brassmask, no offense taken, glad to see you're in the spirit of the game...
To answer your questions:
Did you get the $100 from any of the searchers?

The origin of the $100 is immaterial. It may have come from the searchers, it may have come from the searchers' erstwhile allies.

Do we have access to 24 hour monitoring of the whole of Knoxville in order to track your every move and when you go to work can we cry foul and say you're moving the $100?

You may monitor all of Knoxville, but you are limited to 5 monitors, who must be escortd by my family members at all times.

If we spot you with 45 cents can we say you have moved the $100 and demand that everyone help us to run into your house and take all of your possessions?

I have six kids. If you spot me with 45 cents, that's a sure sign I've been involved in something illegal.

1)The CIA believes that you are unlikely to "spend" that $100 unless we come and try to evict you from your home.

2)I'm supposed to come and evict you from your home because you might give that $100 to somebody who thinks that you are an "infidel".

3)Attempting to evict you from your home, will cause other people on your street to covet either your $100 or someone elses $100 to use against me.

4)If you were ever to spend that $100 against me, I could spend $1 billion against you which will obliterate you from the Earth.

5)If I do evict you from your home, there is no guarantee that the person that I put into your home afterwards or that some later resident of your home won't try to regain some of that $100 or more.

Click for more on what it would take to convince me to go to war.

Answering the question: You'll note I phrased my comment in regards to US security. One of the multiple threads that the Administration is using is that Iraq is a threat to US security.

How?

A missile that shoots 23 miles further than allowed is not a threat.

It's not okay to break the UN-imposed limit on range. The inspectors are therefore following their mandate and are destroying said missiles. Hussein will build more, most certainly, if given time and freedom to do so. I don't argue that he's a swell fellow who I'd love to have come to dinner.

But this is not cause for war. Is it one in a broad tapestry of events that could be used to invade? Certainly. Part of the problem I have with the push for war is that the story changes on a daily basis. One day we're trumpeting this; the next it might be the human rights violations -- real, most certainly.

As to chemical weapons -- it's not a matter of can they have them, if only a few -- we know they have them since we have the receipts. We also know that he hasn't used them in over a decade; the man is canny and understands that Baghdad would be leveled if he did so. But if pushed with invasion and the 3rd Armored Division is knocking on the gates of Baghdad, I would expect him to use them.

The claims of the AQ connections are fuzzy, at best. While he may allow them access to pass through his country, he certainly doesn't like the concept of religious wingnuts who would just as soon see him dead along with the US. Again, though, if we invade and he's going down, I wouldn't be surprised if some of his weapons found their way into even nastier hands than his, whether by his order or some generals taking things into their own hands.

War in Iraq at this juncture is about the dumbest thing we could be contemplating. I live in NYC, and Iraqis didn't bring down the WTC, contrary to what the average 'merican seems to believe. AQ did, with 15 Saudis.

Last thought -- the last time Bush mentioned bin Laden by name? July 8, 2002.

I want the bastards who attacked my country. Hussein can come later. Unfortunately, the neocons calling the shots haven't realized that by attacking Iraq, we'll open ourselves up for even more headaches via terrorism than we might have had without the war.

Hey, while all you guys are sitting around here jawboning, I'll be out looking for the $100. I've already eliminated one possible location -- my wallet. Also note that SKB has pledged he will match the $100 prize, as long as you follow the rules and there's no cheating.

Manish,
You're pushing the analogy too far. The only point of the exercise was to illustrate the impossible conditions the inspectors are operating under, as well as have a little fun.

Scott,

We agree here: http://64.21.37.2/~rhailey/archives/001468.html#001468

"Once he uses WMD, he's finished, and he's smart enough to know that. The only way Hussein stays in power is to keep the threat of NBC warfare alive without actually engaging in it. The actions of the UN, spearheaded by the French/German bloc, play into his plan perfectly. He remains in power, while continuing to thumb his nose at the US."

But I take the scenario a step further:

"The reason we can't allow this "containment" to work is that there are other groups who can use NBC warfare without losing power because they aren't pinned to a single country. I'm referring of course to terrorists. Hussein would certainly like to use his weapons if they couldn't be traced back to him, and what better way to do that than to sell them to a terrorist group?"

That is how Iraq's refusal to follow UN resolutions affects US security. In addition, Hussein has the capability of attacking our allies in the Mideast, including Turkey and Israel.

You make a good point, although I think it was not the one you intended. As you say, there is no single reason strong enough to warrant a war. However, the "broad tapestry" (I like that phrase, btw) which includes the chemical weapons you admit he has, the violation of the cease fire terms you admit he is guilty of, the human rights violations you deplore, his past history of aggression you acknowledge, his known ties to terrorist organizations (Jihad Islami and al Qaida), overwhelmingly support intervention. Since diplomatic intervention has been a failure, we are left with the option of leaving him in power or intervening militarily.

It comes down to this, do you believe in avoiding war at all costs, or are there times when war is justified. The former is pure hypocracy, while if you believe the latter, you have to decide when the risks of inaction outweigh the costs of war. I belive 9/11 showed that we could no longer pay the price of inaction.

As for ObL, I believe the President did mention him, if not by name, during the State of the Union address, when he said, "Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." I believe that is a direct reference to ObL, that we know he is dead, but that we are not admitting that knowledge openly, whether to protect intelligence assets, or for disinformation purposes.

Fantastic! I see that a few folks may not agree with you, but you are on target. Thanks for the great posting.

Rich,

You wrote: Hussein would certainly like to use his weapons if they couldn't be traced back to him, and what better way to do that than to sell them to a terrorist group?"

Please explain to me and the world WHY Hussain would like to use his WMD, without using the words "madman" or "evil". In all seriousness, what would he gain from it? And let's not forget, AQ and Iraq have ideological differences according to British intelligence. The OBL tape that was recently released in an initial translation had Osama calling for Hussein's overthrow, in a subsequent translation it had OBL calling Saddam an "infidel" (i.e. same thing that he calls Americans). Iraq is a secular country where the 2nd most powerful man (Tariq Aziz) is a Christian. Further, you are making the assumption that Iraq could somehow know in advance that it's fooling U.S. intelligence or could cover it's tracks. Saddam, (nor anyone else on the planet with the exception of high-level US government officials), doesn't know what US intelligence is capable of.

You also wrote:

I believe that is a direct reference to ObL, that we know he is dead, but that we are not admitting that knowledge openly, whether to protect intelligence assets, or for disinformation purposes.

He created the last two tapes from his grave? And how would he have met his demise? Certainly, if he were killed by some sort of American or allied operation, AQ would know about it. If he died of natural causes or some sort of poisoning, it might serve the purpose of disinformation. Though if I were an AQ member and found that OBL died after eating something, I'd get really suspicious.

Manish

1)Please explain to me and the world WHY Hussain would like to use his WMD, without using the words "madman" or "evil".

First, we already know that he considers them acceptible for use, since he's used them on his owm countrymen. Second, we know he'd like to eradicate Israel. Third, we know he would like to inflict damage on the US, in any way he can. Add one to two and three, and we see he has targets and no compunctions about using WMD to hit those targets.

2)The OBL tape that was recently released in an initial translation had Osama calling for Hussein's overthrow, in a subsequent translation it had OBL calling Saddam an "infidel" (i.e. same thing that he calls Americans).

Here's a transcript of the tape:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1572917.php

Quoting: It is not harmful in such conditions for the Muslims' interests and socialists' interests to come along with each other during the war against the crusade, without changing our faith and our declaration that socialists are infidels. Socialists' leadership had fallen down a long time ago. Socialists are infidels wherever they are, either in Baghdad or Aden. Such war which may take place these days is similar to the war between Muslims and Romans when the interests of the Muslims came along with the interests of the Persians who both fought against the Romans. Nothing was harmful for the Companions of the Prophet.

This is where he implies that Hussein is an infidel, but says that it is OK for true Muslims to fight for him against America. Later, the Muslims can deal with the socialist infiidel. In siple terms, al Qaida is putting aside ideological differences for now, while facing the greater threat of America.

3)Further, you are making the assumption that Iraq could somehow know in advance that it's fooling U.S. intelligence or could cover it's tracks. Saddam, (nor anyone else on the planet with the exception of high-level US government officials), doesn't know what US intelligence is capable of.

True, but he doesn't need to. As we see right now, unless we catch him red-handed in broad daylight passing the WMD along, the french.Germans/Belgians/Russians will hold out for more proof.

4)He created the last two tapes from his grave? And how would he have met his demise? Certainly, if he were killed by some sort of American or allied operation, AQ would know about it.

I believe the tapes are forgeries, planted by al Qaida to keep secret the fact that OBL died in the caves of Tora Bora. Prior to our attack in Afghanistan, OBL was a camera hound. Since then, we never see him. NOw, he has said he will martyr himself some time this year, conveniently allowing AQ to end the charade, while giving OBL a martyr's death, rather than dying like a rat in a cave.

Rich,

First off, yes he has used WMD against his own people and that shouldn't be condoned. However, there is a difference between beating your girlfriend and punching Mike Tyson. Saddam didn't use WMD during the first Gulf War. He could have put chemical weapons into the scuds he was firing at Israel. He is only going to use them if he feels that there is nothing to lose. Right now, he has his country to lose.

Second, under the scenario that we don't go to war, if Saddam did give AQ WMD, what's to say that after America is taken care of that AQ won't hold back some weapons and use them against Saddam? If I were Saddam, that would make me think twice about giving Al Qaeda WMD.

Thirdly, the tapes were verified by the CIA as being OBL's voice and contained information on current events such that they must have been recorded some time after Tora Bora. One of the theories going around is that he may have been injured such that he doesn't want to appear on video.

Yes, Saddam has done some bad things, including being uncooperative with the weapons inspectors, but war will make the world less secure.

I apologize for getting off of the basic thread, but I wanted to address this issue. To all of you Pro-Saddam people I must ask a simple question...

How many people must die in order to justify action against Saddam?

To compound this question, here are a few others... Who must die? Americans? Allies? Enemies? Civilians? 100 people? 1000 people?

America’s promise was not only to get rid of the terrorists who participated against attacks against our country, but also a warning to all terrorist and terrorist regimes. One of the debates about Saddam is that he cannot be linked to the attacks against our country. Although basically true, it is also agreed that he also is not a 'good' person, in fact, most who describe him use the word ‘evil’. Here are some of the other things that we know about Saddam Hussein and the situation…

Fact - The purpose of the UN Inspection teams is NOT to prove the existence of WMD, but to verify the claims of destruction and/or dismantling of these weapons. According to the latest UN Resolution, Saddam must prove that he does not have WMD, NOT the other way around...
Fact - Saddam ordered the use of biological and chemical weapons against several Kurdish Villages in 1988 - (Kurds are Iraqi citizens, inside of Iraq territory...)
Fact - Saddam (unsuccessfully) ordered troops into Kuwait to 'liberate' the country into his own control - when defeated, his troops deliberately destroyed everything they could including the burning of oil fields. Much of Kuwait's art, culture and society were destroyed or stolen in the process. Kuwaiti women and children were reportedly raped, beaten, tortured and killed by Iraqi troops
Fact - Saddam has refused even basic humanitarian aid from several organizations including the UN (UNICEF), the Red Cross and several countries (Remember, according to Arabic news reports "...hundreds of people are starving to death in Iraq every day '…because of UN Sanctions…'")
Fact - Saddam continues to kill people in Kurdistan and the surrounding areas, accusing them of 'dissidence'
Fact - Saddam agreed to UN Sanctions that were passed after the Invation of Kuwait. So far, 17 UN Resolutions against Saddam's regime are being ignored by Iraq (and apparantly the rest of the world as well)
Fact - Saddam has enough UNACCOUNTED FOR Biological and/or Chemical WMD to kill everyone on the planet - twice
Fact - Iraqi Citizens who speak out against Iraq or Saddam have a nasty habit of disappearing and the remaining family members are subject to brutal beatings and rape squads
Fact - Iraqi athletes are beaten, tortured and killed for not performing adequately in events (including the Olympics...)
Fact - Saddam is "tirelessly" pursuing the production of Nuclear weapons and may be only "a few months" away from completion

Fact - On January 29th 2002, President Bush vowed to shut down terrorist training facilities, and to "...prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the [rest of the] world..."

It does not matter that Iraq cannot attack the U.S. directly, for Iraq is in a ready and able position to attack our allies, our friends, and for many of us, our families. Saddam Hussein has been described by many as being 'on the edge', 'not entirely sane', and even 'drunk on power'. In other words, he sounds like a terrorist to me…

I have a challenge too. Think about how what we are going to do after we have invaded Iraq. If you want somewhere to get started, I have posted links to several newspaper articles during the past couple of weeks, one from the Bush administration, one leaked by the Kurds. Are we going to let Turkey take a shot at occupying the Kurds? How are we going to keep the Shia from killing the Sunni's - or will we? Can we do all this without exposing our troops to constant terrorist attacks in a country where the terrorists speak the language and most of our troops don't?

I can't offer $100.00 to anyone who comes up with a great idea, because someone would feel cheated when they thought their idea was great and I didn't. I can only promise to link to your idea whether I think it's good or not, if you make sure I know you've blogged it.

Chirstopher: How many must die? The price was about 3000 for action against the Taliban and al-Queda. The price was about 1500 for action against Japan and the "real" Axis. That's a pretty horrible thing to say, I know. But still...