-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
thoughts on war with Iraq
- Thread starter The Wiz
- Start date
- Status
psrogers
Intel Officer
I keep scrolling up and down this page to find something that 'Hornet' said. I guess it was deleted. Bummer. As an aside, one really important difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that we never even once bombed the capital city of North Vietman, Hanoi. It's hard to win a war when you restrict your air campaign to forests and strategically irrelevant targets, where you can't see anything and only hit the roofs of bunkers (and not with today's bunker busters, of course).
'Bombs over Baghdad'
Did everyone see how the Iraqi government organized an anti-US protest today- the people are donating blood, which is being used to paint banners of support for Saddam. That's f#%$ed up.
'Bombs over Baghdad'
Did everyone see how the Iraqi government organized an anti-US protest today- the people are donating blood, which is being used to paint banners of support for Saddam. That's f#%$ed up.
I probably risk being booted from this forum--some people may even call for me to be tarred and feathered for my presumed 'liberal' thoughts--oh the horror of a military person having a dissenting opinion with the hawkish majority--but I am willing to risk the possibility. With all due deference to current and upcoming college grads--one dissenting opinion does not a liberal make. If you really want to call me something I think that 'polemic' or 'iconoclast' would be more appropriate in this situation. In fact, let's just settle on 'Realist' because that is where I like to position myself--whatever idea brings the best possible solution is the most appropriate--despite its origins in political philosophy.
I did not have the opportunity to read 'hornet's' response but in all seriousness I did not have too. The responses from the assorted members were entertaining enough. It seems to me that if this forum's members were as fervent about educating themselves on this matter--for this whole Iraq issue is a complex situation with many origins and "NO" simple solutions--as they are for bringing death and destruction and condemning those who merely express their opinion, we could maybe have a civil and rational discussion of the issues. But since the latter is evidently the most popular position--I will take it upon myself to provide just a smidget of information on this hugely complex issue.
1) People are so quick to say that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people and Iran--and I will not deny that it isn't a true assertion. However, before we condemn the man for using it should we not then condemn ourselves for giving it to him. Those chemical weapons components were not some kind of "emaculant" military conception--we gave them to Saddam, and after he used them we continued to have relations with him. Why? Because he was the lesser of two evils--we hated Iran more than Iraq. If you want clarification that these events actually transpired you have only to look at photos of Rumsfeld chumming around with Saddam back in the '80's. I am not saying that friends can't become enemies--I have probably acquired many new enemies that once previously would have been friends but--when those friendships once aided in such horrific acts--one must question the motivation behind those friendships at all. Oh yeah, speaking of past relationships gone bad--what about Osama and all of his American made Stingers--and the international connections we hooked him up with just to fight the spread of communism. I know that hind sight is 20/20 but--communism is dead folks.
2)For that forum member who used the acronym 'WOMD'--do alittle more research chief--it's WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). And here is another acronym that most people don't know or have conveniently forgotten since the end of the Cold War: MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). In case you are not familiar with this term it is what kept this world from slipping into a nuclear armageddon during the Cold War. The principle is: advarsaries will be less inclined to initiate an offensive attack if there is the possiblity for an equal or greater retaliatory response. I know what you are thinking--terrorists groups will not adhere to this deterance strategy--and I would concur, but Saddam is an authoritarian, a dictator. He wants to have something to rule over--and will not risk everything he now has to try and 'attack America'. However, as the CIA has recently expressed--Saddam will use those weapons "IF" he is attacked.
3)Some very important "Military" folk have condemned the current administrations stance on Iraq. Anyone remember General Zinni--you know that former Marine General who was special envoy to the Middle East last year. He disagrees, as well as scores of other influencial generals, including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Here is a recent article: http://www.msnbc.com/news/823460.asp?0cl=c1. The problem with an argument is that each side has a particular point of view--but when members of the military--and influential ones at that get involved--the issues leave the realm of partisan politics and runs back into the arena of 'realistic' perspectives. But who cares what those old codgers say anyway--they have been corrupted by the "LIBERALS".
4) Right now, the impulse to label me a 'liberal' is being generated in many of your brains--I would not expect anything less--but any of you who are quick to judge should remember the key to a good offense is a good defense to employ a much used sports analogy. I am an advocate for proper aggression but not for indiscriminate incursion that doesn't serve the best interests of America, or the citizens who will fight the battles. I am not an accomplished military strategist but even I can tell you that the multiplicity of hostile fronts--Iraq and North Korea are established well defined fronts, but Al Qaeda utilizes a global front--is not conducive for a quick and easy engagement. Ask Napolean and Hitler about one too many fronts. My recommendation would be to wage an aggressive, yet highly covert engagement first against Al Qaeda, and then Iraq. If you have doubts just look at the success Israel had with their campaign against the Palestinians after the 1972 Olympic games massacre. They went in, without anyone knowing, and killed all of those responsible. They were not timid and showed no mercy, all the while developing an atmosphere of fear and anxiety within the underground movement. Popular misconception would have you believe that overwhelming military might produces incapcitating fear in enemies, but in reality, safety and security are far greater contributors to an individuals overall feeling of comfort. Ask Kadafi and Arafat why they did not sleep in the same place and probably still don't.
5)But look at the state of America security today. We have a formidable army--the best in the world, but we have been forced into a compromised position because our enemy is not some huge massive army with all kinds of missiles and other sophisticated equipment. We are a nation fearful of attack--and no matter what you say about these people we are fighting and our military--our ability to protect ourselves will be further compromised if we lose international support, and inflame Arab passions. You say "So What" I say 9/11 all over again--but where, who knows. Iraq is a massive elephant, which can be seen and heard at long distances. Al Qaeda on the other hand is the equivalent of a mosquito infected by the West Nile Virus. One, two, three, maybe four bites and you are infected. Conventinal treatments for eradicating mosquitos haven't worked--and so conventinal methods for fighting our enemies won't work either. We have to function just like the terrorist and take it to them--Iraq is no problem because they can't move an inch without us knowing something. Special Forces units have been underutilized for many years--the Clinton administration can be blamed for that. But isn't that why we developed those units--I say--let these units do what they need to do--without public scrutiny. The only problem is the media always wanting to inform the public of their where abouts and doings. These small, well armed, and mobile units could help turn up the pressure on terrorists and those who help them. The worst fear you can have is a fear you can not see or protect against.
6) And if you are concerned about them making a bomb--CIA reports attest to the fact that "IF" Saddam could make a device--it would probably eclipse 'Fat Boy' in size, and 'Fat Boy' was stinkin' big compared to modern warheads. How is Saddam going to deliver that to the US? And why??? would he want to give his only, I mean is only, nuclear bomb? So these same radical fundamentalists can come and take over his country? Did any of you know that Osama Bin Laden--you know him right--actually was trying to put together a mujahaden army to go to Kuwait to fight against Saddam? Osama disagreed too.
You can lable me a liberal, hell some of you may challenge my manhood, but it does not negate the fact that I am atleast informed with what is going on and my decisions are not based upon the diatribe of war mongers who are unwilling to heed the warnings of accomplished military personnel. I have served as an enlisted Marine, and I desire to serve as a Navy officer--my patriotism, and my dedication to this country and to all who serve it is without question, but there are too many questions that deserve answering before we can make such a drastic move towards war. If sent to fight I would fight--without question or hesitation--but that doesn't mean I can't have reservations. No good leader would ever jeporadize the lives of his men without first thinking through what is the most appropriate thing to do and weighing all of the pros and cons. Just because you make an oath and put on a uniform does not mean you relinquish your right to an opinion. We do things everyday that we may feel restrict or inhibit us--but that is the price we pay for personal freedom. Because certain individuals choose to question the need for immediate action with Iraq does not mean they are unpatriotic, weak, or the dreaded word liberal. I challenge all of the members who read this to go out and educate yourselves on this issue--dig beyond your comfort levels and look at all of the information available. Even conservative Republicans have challenged the current stance on Iraq.
Finally, if you think me unAmerican then remember this piece of history. John Adams, a beloved and respected founding father and third president, chose to defend the British soldiers accused of instigating the Boston Massacre. He was vehemently denounced by the revolutionaries, and disliked by many but his motivation for this act was his true love of the law--and the need for all people to have the right to a fair judgement by it. This issue with Iraq is not about the legality of going to war but an issue of liberty and democracy. The true inaction of liberty is not blindly following firery rhetoric and a static dogma just because, nor is democracy about the repudiation of dissentient Americans. Quite the opposite, liberty is having the strength to stand up and speak out on an unpopular opinion without reprisal--which lends itself to an environment where all voices can be heard--a democracy. But then again, what does the military need with people who demonstrate the ability to think for themselves. It should be considered that officers are trained to follow orders, this we all can accpet as true, and I will follow all orders I am given without question, but it is also an individual's own cunning and innate ability to think for himself that will save his life when orders can no longer protect him. These are my opinions--love em or hate em--it is your choice. Feel free to email me your best wishes and death threats--I welcome and appreciate the attention.
"Today I can declare my hope and declare it from the bottom of my heart that we will eventually see the time when the number of nuclear weapons is down to zero and the world is a much better place."
—Gen Colin Powell, USA
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
kraemer77
kraemer_st@hotmail.com
I did not have the opportunity to read 'hornet's' response but in all seriousness I did not have too. The responses from the assorted members were entertaining enough. It seems to me that if this forum's members were as fervent about educating themselves on this matter--for this whole Iraq issue is a complex situation with many origins and "NO" simple solutions--as they are for bringing death and destruction and condemning those who merely express their opinion, we could maybe have a civil and rational discussion of the issues. But since the latter is evidently the most popular position--I will take it upon myself to provide just a smidget of information on this hugely complex issue.
1) People are so quick to say that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people and Iran--and I will not deny that it isn't a true assertion. However, before we condemn the man for using it should we not then condemn ourselves for giving it to him. Those chemical weapons components were not some kind of "emaculant" military conception--we gave them to Saddam, and after he used them we continued to have relations with him. Why? Because he was the lesser of two evils--we hated Iran more than Iraq. If you want clarification that these events actually transpired you have only to look at photos of Rumsfeld chumming around with Saddam back in the '80's. I am not saying that friends can't become enemies--I have probably acquired many new enemies that once previously would have been friends but--when those friendships once aided in such horrific acts--one must question the motivation behind those friendships at all. Oh yeah, speaking of past relationships gone bad--what about Osama and all of his American made Stingers--and the international connections we hooked him up with just to fight the spread of communism. I know that hind sight is 20/20 but--communism is dead folks.
2)For that forum member who used the acronym 'WOMD'--do alittle more research chief--it's WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). And here is another acronym that most people don't know or have conveniently forgotten since the end of the Cold War: MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). In case you are not familiar with this term it is what kept this world from slipping into a nuclear armageddon during the Cold War. The principle is: advarsaries will be less inclined to initiate an offensive attack if there is the possiblity for an equal or greater retaliatory response. I know what you are thinking--terrorists groups will not adhere to this deterance strategy--and I would concur, but Saddam is an authoritarian, a dictator. He wants to have something to rule over--and will not risk everything he now has to try and 'attack America'. However, as the CIA has recently expressed--Saddam will use those weapons "IF" he is attacked.
3)Some very important "Military" folk have condemned the current administrations stance on Iraq. Anyone remember General Zinni--you know that former Marine General who was special envoy to the Middle East last year. He disagrees, as well as scores of other influencial generals, including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Here is a recent article: http://www.msnbc.com/news/823460.asp?0cl=c1. The problem with an argument is that each side has a particular point of view--but when members of the military--and influential ones at that get involved--the issues leave the realm of partisan politics and runs back into the arena of 'realistic' perspectives. But who cares what those old codgers say anyway--they have been corrupted by the "LIBERALS".
4) Right now, the impulse to label me a 'liberal' is being generated in many of your brains--I would not expect anything less--but any of you who are quick to judge should remember the key to a good offense is a good defense to employ a much used sports analogy. I am an advocate for proper aggression but not for indiscriminate incursion that doesn't serve the best interests of America, or the citizens who will fight the battles. I am not an accomplished military strategist but even I can tell you that the multiplicity of hostile fronts--Iraq and North Korea are established well defined fronts, but Al Qaeda utilizes a global front--is not conducive for a quick and easy engagement. Ask Napolean and Hitler about one too many fronts. My recommendation would be to wage an aggressive, yet highly covert engagement first against Al Qaeda, and then Iraq. If you have doubts just look at the success Israel had with their campaign against the Palestinians after the 1972 Olympic games massacre. They went in, without anyone knowing, and killed all of those responsible. They were not timid and showed no mercy, all the while developing an atmosphere of fear and anxiety within the underground movement. Popular misconception would have you believe that overwhelming military might produces incapcitating fear in enemies, but in reality, safety and security are far greater contributors to an individuals overall feeling of comfort. Ask Kadafi and Arafat why they did not sleep in the same place and probably still don't.
5)But look at the state of America security today. We have a formidable army--the best in the world, but we have been forced into a compromised position because our enemy is not some huge massive army with all kinds of missiles and other sophisticated equipment. We are a nation fearful of attack--and no matter what you say about these people we are fighting and our military--our ability to protect ourselves will be further compromised if we lose international support, and inflame Arab passions. You say "So What" I say 9/11 all over again--but where, who knows. Iraq is a massive elephant, which can be seen and heard at long distances. Al Qaeda on the other hand is the equivalent of a mosquito infected by the West Nile Virus. One, two, three, maybe four bites and you are infected. Conventinal treatments for eradicating mosquitos haven't worked--and so conventinal methods for fighting our enemies won't work either. We have to function just like the terrorist and take it to them--Iraq is no problem because they can't move an inch without us knowing something. Special Forces units have been underutilized for many years--the Clinton administration can be blamed for that. But isn't that why we developed those units--I say--let these units do what they need to do--without public scrutiny. The only problem is the media always wanting to inform the public of their where abouts and doings. These small, well armed, and mobile units could help turn up the pressure on terrorists and those who help them. The worst fear you can have is a fear you can not see or protect against.
6) And if you are concerned about them making a bomb--CIA reports attest to the fact that "IF" Saddam could make a device--it would probably eclipse 'Fat Boy' in size, and 'Fat Boy' was stinkin' big compared to modern warheads. How is Saddam going to deliver that to the US? And why??? would he want to give his only, I mean is only, nuclear bomb? So these same radical fundamentalists can come and take over his country? Did any of you know that Osama Bin Laden--you know him right--actually was trying to put together a mujahaden army to go to Kuwait to fight against Saddam? Osama disagreed too.
You can lable me a liberal, hell some of you may challenge my manhood, but it does not negate the fact that I am atleast informed with what is going on and my decisions are not based upon the diatribe of war mongers who are unwilling to heed the warnings of accomplished military personnel. I have served as an enlisted Marine, and I desire to serve as a Navy officer--my patriotism, and my dedication to this country and to all who serve it is without question, but there are too many questions that deserve answering before we can make such a drastic move towards war. If sent to fight I would fight--without question or hesitation--but that doesn't mean I can't have reservations. No good leader would ever jeporadize the lives of his men without first thinking through what is the most appropriate thing to do and weighing all of the pros and cons. Just because you make an oath and put on a uniform does not mean you relinquish your right to an opinion. We do things everyday that we may feel restrict or inhibit us--but that is the price we pay for personal freedom. Because certain individuals choose to question the need for immediate action with Iraq does not mean they are unpatriotic, weak, or the dreaded word liberal. I challenge all of the members who read this to go out and educate yourselves on this issue--dig beyond your comfort levels and look at all of the information available. Even conservative Republicans have challenged the current stance on Iraq.
Finally, if you think me unAmerican then remember this piece of history. John Adams, a beloved and respected founding father and third president, chose to defend the British soldiers accused of instigating the Boston Massacre. He was vehemently denounced by the revolutionaries, and disliked by many but his motivation for this act was his true love of the law--and the need for all people to have the right to a fair judgement by it. This issue with Iraq is not about the legality of going to war but an issue of liberty and democracy. The true inaction of liberty is not blindly following firery rhetoric and a static dogma just because, nor is democracy about the repudiation of dissentient Americans. Quite the opposite, liberty is having the strength to stand up and speak out on an unpopular opinion without reprisal--which lends itself to an environment where all voices can be heard--a democracy. But then again, what does the military need with people who demonstrate the ability to think for themselves. It should be considered that officers are trained to follow orders, this we all can accpet as true, and I will follow all orders I am given without question, but it is also an individual's own cunning and innate ability to think for himself that will save his life when orders can no longer protect him. These are my opinions--love em or hate em--it is your choice. Feel free to email me your best wishes and death threats--I welcome and appreciate the attention.
"Today I can declare my hope and declare it from the bottom of my heart that we will eventually see the time when the number of nuclear weapons is down to zero and the world is a much better place."
—Gen Colin Powell, USA
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
kraemer77
kraemer_st@hotmail.com
Kraemer you crack me up. You should not worry about what others think if you have done your research and come to a different conclusion than most. That is far more refreshing than someone with a dissenting opinion with no factual reasons why. That sir is your liberal. Your reasons are sound. I seperate the military from politics. Politicians will make deals with the lesser of two evils while overlooking the fact that they still had to deal with evil. Our politicians are short sighted. They deal with problems in a four year cycle. They create conflicts by fixing others. To us, this is what is known as "job security" and for that I thank them.
Oh I almost forgot, just because Saddam doesn't have a conventional delivery means does not mean we are not threatened. I don't believe we are afraid of a bomb dropped from high above. I think the threat lies with unconventional dirty bombs. It is the means to make nuclear material that Bush is concerned with, not a nuke bomb. Think, what if a shipping container on a cargo ship just pulling into harbor were to contain a dirty bomb? Do not underestimate your enemy. If he wants to hurt us, he will.
Oh I almost forgot, just because Saddam doesn't have a conventional delivery means does not mean we are not threatened. I don't believe we are afraid of a bomb dropped from high above. I think the threat lies with unconventional dirty bombs. It is the means to make nuclear material that Bush is concerned with, not a nuke bomb. Think, what if a shipping container on a cargo ship just pulling into harbor were to contain a dirty bomb? Do not underestimate your enemy. If he wants to hurt us, he will.
Kraemer:
It would scare me if you were booted from this site for stating your oppinion in the way you did. God help us, if we all had the same thoughts on Iraq we would be a bunch of droids; easily programmed by rhetoric. I definately would'nt view you as unpatriotic, I think a better phrase to describe you on this issue would be the antithesis of a blind patriot. Needless to say, I appreciate your thoughtful post.
It would scare me if you were booted from this site for stating your oppinion in the way you did. God help us, if we all had the same thoughts on Iraq we would be a bunch of droids; easily programmed by rhetoric. I definately would'nt view you as unpatriotic, I think a better phrase to describe you on this issue would be the antithesis of a blind patriot. Needless to say, I appreciate your thoughtful post.
I should probably lurk and watch the fracas that ensues, but I have to jump in here.
Kraemer:
I wouldn't think of branding you a liberal for having an opposing point of view on this one issue. It's good to hear, especially from a prior (current?) enlisted, that not everyone is buying the popular line on this one.
But I support military intervention in Iraq. With regards to your reason 1) We did give some chemical weapons technology to Iraq. We also sold arms to Iran (Ollie North anyone?), which perpetuated the Iran-Iraq war and contributed to Saddam's bloodlust in Kuwait. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the smartest thing for the U.S. to get involved in. But does that mean that because we aided him in some way that we now cannot remove him? Doesn't making the mistake mean it is that much more critical that we go in there and fix things?
I don't find deterrence a reliable strategy for containing Iraq's potential nuclear threat. Yes, it is remotely possible that Saddam (or whomever) would position such a weapon in the U.S. This alone is reason enough to intervene.
More likely, however, what if he re-invades Kuwait? And he has a nuke? Would the U.S. be so quick to jump in again? What if he bolts a warhead onto a SCUD and sends it into Israel, Riyadh, or the men and women at Incirlik?
What if he's sneaky enough to hand it off to some terrorist group, getting it out of his hands and perhaps positioned against a European target? These are hypotheticals. And perhaps unlikely ones. But the catastrophy of September 11 changed the entire calculus. These possibilities cannot be dismissed as Tom Clancy material anymore. We cannot wait to see how much worse it will get.
The idea of deterrence is based on what they call in game theory a 'rational actor.' Saddam is anything but rational. As you know, he gassed his own people, and sent tens of thousands to die against Iran. What's more, this guy started a war that he knew would end with U.S. intervention. If you were a dictator, would you start a quarrel with the American military? Marc Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, wrote a great character sketch of Saddam you can see here: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm
When told by his generals of the imminent American push, Saddam ordered his generals to seize American soldiers as POWs, and strap them onto Iraqi tanks, thinking Iraqi forces would then be invulnerable, since Americans would never risk taking the lives of their own, and the tanks could roll all the way to Mecca. Does this sound like a rational idea to you?
3) The best argument I've seen against the war is the one you mentioned: Saddam may feel he has nothing left to lose, and use whatever WMD he has stockpiled against American troops. That is a legitimate concern, and one I would like to see addressed more in the media.
4) Lets make one thing clear: our enemy, post-911, is not Iraq. It's not Al-qaeda. It's not Islam, Arabs, or even Islamic fundamentalism. It's much bigger than all that. If we could snap our fingers and make every last Al-Qaeda member and sympathizer disappear, could everyone just kick back and relax? No way.
America is a target because we are successful, powerful, and free. We are everything the countries of the middle east are not. And they hate us for it. They blame us for their failure to succeed. They do not blame their oppression of women, dependence on oil, and state censorship for their failure to adapt to the modern world. They blame American meddling, and they fastidiously adhere to a religion that has resisted 1400 years of progress.
To win this war, as one commentator put it, we can do one of two things: Fail, and allow them to overtake us. Or force them to modernize, to adapt modern frameworks of a society that allows a free flow of information, demands respect for women and their right to work, and, more importantly, instill them with the unwavering principle that they have a say in who runs their government, and how.
There isn't a special forces unit on the planet that can do this.
Iran--the people of Iran, anyway--is moving in this direction. But when it comes to American intervention, Iraq is a logical starting point. The issue of WMD is a credible one, but it is just the tip of the iceberg. The people there are tired of living under a maniac dictator. They do not care for the USA much, nor should it matter to us if they do or not, so long as they leave us alone. We want to install a government there that will be stable, democratic, and self-sustaining. It is a reasonable goal that will make the U.S. safer--both my removing a threat, and by applying pressure in neighboring countries, such as Iran, Syria, even Saudi Arabia, to pull their head out of their ass before they get the same treatment Saddam did.
Kraemer:
I wouldn't think of branding you a liberal for having an opposing point of view on this one issue. It's good to hear, especially from a prior (current?) enlisted, that not everyone is buying the popular line on this one.
But I support military intervention in Iraq. With regards to your reason 1) We did give some chemical weapons technology to Iraq. We also sold arms to Iran (Ollie North anyone?), which perpetuated the Iran-Iraq war and contributed to Saddam's bloodlust in Kuwait. In retrospect, it probably wasn't the smartest thing for the U.S. to get involved in. But does that mean that because we aided him in some way that we now cannot remove him? Doesn't making the mistake mean it is that much more critical that we go in there and fix things?
I don't find deterrence a reliable strategy for containing Iraq's potential nuclear threat. Yes, it is remotely possible that Saddam (or whomever) would position such a weapon in the U.S. This alone is reason enough to intervene.
More likely, however, what if he re-invades Kuwait? And he has a nuke? Would the U.S. be so quick to jump in again? What if he bolts a warhead onto a SCUD and sends it into Israel, Riyadh, or the men and women at Incirlik?
What if he's sneaky enough to hand it off to some terrorist group, getting it out of his hands and perhaps positioned against a European target? These are hypotheticals. And perhaps unlikely ones. But the catastrophy of September 11 changed the entire calculus. These possibilities cannot be dismissed as Tom Clancy material anymore. We cannot wait to see how much worse it will get.
The idea of deterrence is based on what they call in game theory a 'rational actor.' Saddam is anything but rational. As you know, he gassed his own people, and sent tens of thousands to die against Iran. What's more, this guy started a war that he knew would end with U.S. intervention. If you were a dictator, would you start a quarrel with the American military? Marc Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, wrote a great character sketch of Saddam you can see here: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm
When told by his generals of the imminent American push, Saddam ordered his generals to seize American soldiers as POWs, and strap them onto Iraqi tanks, thinking Iraqi forces would then be invulnerable, since Americans would never risk taking the lives of their own, and the tanks could roll all the way to Mecca. Does this sound like a rational idea to you?
3) The best argument I've seen against the war is the one you mentioned: Saddam may feel he has nothing left to lose, and use whatever WMD he has stockpiled against American troops. That is a legitimate concern, and one I would like to see addressed more in the media.
4) Lets make one thing clear: our enemy, post-911, is not Iraq. It's not Al-qaeda. It's not Islam, Arabs, or even Islamic fundamentalism. It's much bigger than all that. If we could snap our fingers and make every last Al-Qaeda member and sympathizer disappear, could everyone just kick back and relax? No way.
America is a target because we are successful, powerful, and free. We are everything the countries of the middle east are not. And they hate us for it. They blame us for their failure to succeed. They do not blame their oppression of women, dependence on oil, and state censorship for their failure to adapt to the modern world. They blame American meddling, and they fastidiously adhere to a religion that has resisted 1400 years of progress.
To win this war, as one commentator put it, we can do one of two things: Fail, and allow them to overtake us. Or force them to modernize, to adapt modern frameworks of a society that allows a free flow of information, demands respect for women and their right to work, and, more importantly, instill them with the unwavering principle that they have a say in who runs their government, and how.
There isn't a special forces unit on the planet that can do this.
Iran--the people of Iran, anyway--is moving in this direction. But when it comes to American intervention, Iraq is a logical starting point. The issue of WMD is a credible one, but it is just the tip of the iceberg. The people there are tired of living under a maniac dictator. They do not care for the USA much, nor should it matter to us if they do or not, so long as they leave us alone. We want to install a government there that will be stable, democratic, and self-sustaining. It is a reasonable goal that will make the U.S. safer--both my removing a threat, and by applying pressure in neighboring countries, such as Iran, Syria, even Saudi Arabia, to pull their head out of their ass before they get the same treatment Saddam did.
I have a feeling weapons of mass destruction is a secondary issue--important but secondary since Iraq is the second largest oil producing nation in the world.
Afterall, NOrth Korea is a sworn enemy with deadlier weapons--but not a good enough excuse to take them out the map. If we take out the leadership of Iraq and plant one that we can manage, it would be very profitable. This is a way of cracking the OPEC monopoly.--killing 2 birds with one stone, which I feel is brilliant.
Afterall, war should be profitable or it's just not worth it. This one can create a surplus, bring up the economy, and promote a prosperouse future for America and a democratic Arab nation.
It should have been finished the first time though. Mom always told me, "finish what you start"...I think we should.
Semper Fi
Afterall, NOrth Korea is a sworn enemy with deadlier weapons--but not a good enough excuse to take them out the map. If we take out the leadership of Iraq and plant one that we can manage, it would be very profitable. This is a way of cracking the OPEC monopoly.--killing 2 birds with one stone, which I feel is brilliant.
Afterall, war should be profitable or it's just not worth it. This one can create a surplus, bring up the economy, and promote a prosperouse future for America and a democratic Arab nation.
It should have been finished the first time though. Mom always told me, "finish what you start"...I think we should.
Semper Fi
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning! He was being drilled by some senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?" Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir." The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?" "No, sir," continued Ollie. "No? And why not?" the senator asked. "Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir." "Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned. "By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered. "Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?" "His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied. At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked. "Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of",Ollie answered. "And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator. "Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth." The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip. By the way, that senator was Al Gore
Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
Semper Fi
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning! He was being drilled by some senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?" Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir." The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?" "No, sir," continued Ollie. "No? And why not?" the senator asked. "Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir." "Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned. "By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered. "Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?" "His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied. At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked. "Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of",Ollie answered. "And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator. "Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth." The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip. By the way, that senator was Al Gore
Also: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
Semper Fi
the ollie north/al gore story is an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm
he was referring to abu nidal, and backed this up at his testimony with photographs of atrocities abu nidal had committed. oliver north has written a letter addressing this story, which you can see at the link.
the 'we freed muhammad atta' story is also an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.htm
it involves a man named nuhammad mahmoud atta, who was extradited from the us and sentenced to life imprisonment in israel in 1991. while he may have well been freed as a consequence of the osli accords, this man was a jordanian. muhammad atta, of september 11, was from saudi arabia.
got any more?
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm
he was referring to abu nidal, and backed this up at his testimony with photographs of atrocities abu nidal had committed. oliver north has written a letter addressing this story, which you can see at the link.
the 'we freed muhammad atta' story is also an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.htm
it involves a man named nuhammad mahmoud atta, who was extradited from the us and sentenced to life imprisonment in israel in 1991. while he may have well been freed as a consequence of the osli accords, this man was a jordanian. muhammad atta, of september 11, was from saudi arabia.
got any more?
psrogers
Intel Officer
Kraemer: that was too much at once. You had many intersecting and tangential points in you piece. Maybe you could distill it a little more next time?
Why do you think you will be labeled a liberal? I don't see the connection between being against a certain war and being a liberal.
One thing though. Do you presume that I am a conservative, just because I support a war? Or that I have done no research, because I do not site the roots of my opinions? I feel compelled to fortify my positions, but I will not. I did write my senior undergraduate thesis on the situation in Iraq, which makes me no expert. And of course we are allowed to disagree with the generals of our country, if only in an internet forum. Like someone said, no one should care what anyone else thinks here- except that we should be respectful to each other- that would make us like politicians, and compromise our freedom of opinion.
I respect your opinion and do not judge you in general because of your position on this issue; I hope that you were not implying that you do otherwise to me.
Why do you think you will be labeled a liberal? I don't see the connection between being against a certain war and being a liberal.
One thing though. Do you presume that I am a conservative, just because I support a war? Or that I have done no research, because I do not site the roots of my opinions? I feel compelled to fortify my positions, but I will not. I did write my senior undergraduate thesis on the situation in Iraq, which makes me no expert. And of course we are allowed to disagree with the generals of our country, if only in an internet forum. Like someone said, no one should care what anyone else thinks here- except that we should be respectful to each other- that would make us like politicians, and compromise our freedom of opinion.
I respect your opinion and do not judge you in general because of your position on this issue; I hope that you were not implying that you do otherwise to me.
As my fellow forum member so eloquently put it, I feel the need to distill my thoughts just a little bit further. As far as my apparent fear of being labeled a liberal--I was keenly aware of many of the previous posts and thought my contentions may be misconstrued as being 'off kilter'. I am an open-minded individual, but I am also very opinionated. Throughout college I was often misunderstood and often times I reeped the rewards of a sharp toungue and recalcitrant wit. Plus, I was weary of any kind of response considering the kind of retort that 'hornet' received. I did not get to read his post but it seemed he really rolled out the red carpet for himself. I can can't see you guys--I can only read you.
To all of those who are of the thinking that Iraq is the second largest producer of oil in the world, please allow me to correct the descrepancy in your information. Iraq DOES have the second largest oil reserves second to Saudia Arabia--that is a fact--however as far as the second largest producer in the world they are not. Iraq only outputs 6-7% of the total world production. UN restrictions allow the revenue from these minuscule profits to go only to food and medicine--although we all know where it goes. In fact, before the Gulf War the US only imported 6% of its total oil needs from Iraqi oil fields. We never have been reliant upon Iraq alone for our oil needs and we aren't today. The US actually imports a vast majority of its crude oil from Nigeria. The new man in the house is Russia though. They have vast new oil reserves, as well as in some of the former Soviet 'stans' (ie Uzbekestan). It is speculated that within five to ten years, Russia will be able to sufficiently modernize their production facilities and start producing up to the current level of OPEC. Do not count out Mexico and Venezuala either. Both countries supply ample amounts of oil too. To sum it all up, we really do not need Iraqi oil fields--they would be nice but we can survive without them. The question of oil is really a matter of supply and demand.
As far as not attacking North Korea--it is all really a matter of haves and have nots. Kim Jong has, and Saddam has not (nukes that is). Plus, and this is a big plus--North Korea has 950,000 troops stationed just 20 miles north of Seoul. How many troops do we have--30,000--and Army to boot. We would get slaughtered--plain and simple--and our government knows it--so we negotiate.
I personally don't care what we do--it does not matter anyway--they are going to do what THEY want to do. So I agree and do it. It sure beats the civilian world.
kraemer77
To all of those who are of the thinking that Iraq is the second largest producer of oil in the world, please allow me to correct the descrepancy in your information. Iraq DOES have the second largest oil reserves second to Saudia Arabia--that is a fact--however as far as the second largest producer in the world they are not. Iraq only outputs 6-7% of the total world production. UN restrictions allow the revenue from these minuscule profits to go only to food and medicine--although we all know where it goes. In fact, before the Gulf War the US only imported 6% of its total oil needs from Iraqi oil fields. We never have been reliant upon Iraq alone for our oil needs and we aren't today. The US actually imports a vast majority of its crude oil from Nigeria. The new man in the house is Russia though. They have vast new oil reserves, as well as in some of the former Soviet 'stans' (ie Uzbekestan). It is speculated that within five to ten years, Russia will be able to sufficiently modernize their production facilities and start producing up to the current level of OPEC. Do not count out Mexico and Venezuala either. Both countries supply ample amounts of oil too. To sum it all up, we really do not need Iraqi oil fields--they would be nice but we can survive without them. The question of oil is really a matter of supply and demand.
As far as not attacking North Korea--it is all really a matter of haves and have nots. Kim Jong has, and Saddam has not (nukes that is). Plus, and this is a big plus--North Korea has 950,000 troops stationed just 20 miles north of Seoul. How many troops do we have--30,000--and Army to boot. We would get slaughtered--plain and simple--and our government knows it--so we negotiate.
I personally don't care what we do--it does not matter anyway--they are going to do what THEY want to do. So I agree and do it. It sure beats the civilian world.
kraemer77
- Status