A long but GOOD read. Someone Needed to say it

[Michele 1]

Hi, Tf15

Quote

to repel the invader, just like Churchill promised.

Agreed. And should I be invaded, I will be out there fighting however I can.

My distinction is that it's not "terrorism", per se, because of the target. The target for the suicide bombing was military, not civilian, not, oh gosh, the WTC, or Montreal or Paris or wherever. Not that they "deserve" it, but if the roles were reversed, and Burbank got invaded, and I felt the need to protect, it wouldn't be the civilians as my target.

In my humble estimation, and it is indeed humble, it is terrorism when innocents are targeted...be it the Mombasa hotel, the WTC, or the Bali bombing.

Hi, Bill

Quote

I think many people identify Rumsfeld with the administration, and also think that when he said "six days, six weeks" people thought he meant that the war could be as short as six days.

Yes, perhaps. But Richard (I believe it was Richard) had quoted that it was "Wyatt or Doc Holiday", and then clarified who he meant, and it wasn't Rumsfeld. I do think that there are some who underestimated the difficulties we would encounter, but it wasn't me. And I think that some in the media would fan the flames of panic, inasmuch as saying "you said it's going to be short....", when in fact even Rumsfeld didn't give it specificity - his quote was "six days, six weeks"...I think we are jumping to a detrimental conclusion when the shortest time anyone ever said, off the cuff as it were, included an estimation of "six weeks"...at the end of the first week of the war.

Quote

Even the CIA thinks so. Indeed, they have already stopped several terrorists planning attacks against the US

Agreed to an extent. I also think that there would've been some more attacks in any event...but I find it very difficult to quantify a future event in which the plans are not known and unquantifiable. However, if it is projected that more anger will be generated, and because of that anger there will likely be additional attacks, that I can and will agree with.

There are many many reasons for terrorism, as I understand it. And those reasons have been building for many, many years - in truth, decades. Sudan and Iraq - that's an interesting pair. Kenya, Mombasa, and many other African nations(not necessarily the governments, however) are complicit in the fomenting of terrorism. Add to that Egypt's unrest, the issues with Israel, the Russian issues with Chechnya, and on and on, and you have decades of difficulties which are not easily resolved.

One of my original concerns about this war was the attacks on Israel and Kuwait, and the subsequent enmeshing of those states in the war. I was concerned about the Iraqi air defense. I was concerned about the Kurds uprising immediately, and Turkey invading to take the Kurdish land; I was worried about the ecological damage from burning oil wells and the flooding of the plains...I was worried about Embassies all over the world being bombed. I was worried that there would be suicide attacks at Universal City Walk....and all these were hinted at or promised directly as a result of our "war of aggression". And yet, here it is, day 10, and there hasn't been any of that. Maybe I'm being a little hot off the mark, as there is still quite a ways to go before it's over. But I still think that if there was going to be an attack on Israel, it would've happened.

Instead, we are 50 miles outside of Baghdad, carefully bombing (as best we can), planning for the rebuilding of Iraq, and starting to clear harbors of mines so that not only can we bring in troops and munitions, but that we can also bring in humanitarian aid.

It's been 10 days. Let's give it some time before we jump around hollering "quagmire". Let's give it some time to see just what will transpire. In 1991, there were 43 days (I think) of bombing Iraq before we put "boots in country". We didn't do any of that this time. People forget that, I think. People forget that while it was 100 hours of ground troops in country, there were 1032 hours of airstrikes prior to that creating a way in. I can't remember if there was a 72 hour sandstorm, the likes of which hadn't been seen in many years, during the 1991 conflict, either.

Just my opinions...feel free to have your own!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[seedy 0]

Quote

The target for the suicide bombing was military, not civilian,

I think I would clarify that to be military actively engaged in wartime operations (the USS Cole was military, but not actively engaged at the time).

I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.

[Michele 1]

Thank you, Seedy. I appreciate the clarification. That is what I meant!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 2,426]

> I was concerned about the Kurds uprising immediately, and Turkey
> invading to take the Kurdish land . . .

While that hasn't happened, the Turks _are_ starting to invade (in their terms, 'prepare a refugee area' in Iraq for the Kurds.) A thousand or so troops have crossed the border, and their PM said they will enter whenever they feel they need to. The US is trying to keep them out. Rumsfeld threatened Syria and Iran last week, he said he would "hold them accountable" for any aid given to Iraq. Syria is pretty upset at this, and several Arab news agencies interpret this as a threat to expand the war. (I very much doubt that will happen, but that interpretation makes our lives that much more difficult.)

>Maybe I'm being a little hot off the mark, as there is still quite a ways to
> go before it's over. But I still think that if there was going to be an
>attack on Israel, it would've happened.

I don't think there will be a significant attack on Israel, beyond perhaps a few token Scuds that miss. But I also think that Turkey, Syria and Iran are going to get more and more boisterous as the war drags on without a clear victory (indeed, with many in the Arab street proud of the "Arab stand against the American invaders.") And we haven't begun the most difficult part of the campaign yet - the invasion of Baghdad.

[Michele 1]

I am aware of what Rumsfeld said last week, and while it may be seen as a threat to expand the war, it was a warning shot across the bow...as in "we know what you're doing, stop it..." similar to Ramadan thrusting his fists in the air and saying the suicide bombers will continue to strike, and follow the US into their land. It's designed for effect, I suppose is one way to say it...to scare us/them into remediating actions.

As to the "Arab street", those were some of the same people who danced in the street during 9/11. There is a palpable hatred for the US there, and this is an excuse to demonstrate. I am not too concerned just yet. Ask me again if we invade Iran, Turkey and Syria. Same thing with Turkey - I will wait and see. I am not too familiar with that area...perhaps I need to study up on it a bit more.

Israel made no bones about having nukes, and using them should they be attacked...deterence value, as it were, I suppose. I still worry about it, and those invisible Scuds are some of the weapons banned (aren't they?), which he "doesn't" have...

As for the catagorizing of "as the war drags on", it's still only 10 days old. Give it some time....it isn't "dragging on" just yet...there is a lack of patience and clear understanding of what this entails that I see with some folk that is personally irritating. Not that you shouldn't have your own opinion, but I highly doubt that anyone can honestly catagorize this as "dragging on" at 10 days into the fray...and with one of the largest battles still ahead...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[cgross 1]

The reason why Rummy thinks this is past experience. In the south it happened in 91, but unfortunately it was shot down because the UN didn't have the balls to get rid of SH. If we can prove to Bagdad SH and his admin is gone, a great deal of fear will be gone too. Look at Germany in the 40's.
Yes, it took years, but the communication then vs now are much different.

Rummy also has intel which you and I do not.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

The reason why Rummy thinks this is past experience. In the south it happened in 91, but unfortunately it was shot down because the UN didn't have the balls to get rid of SH.

What did the UN have to do with the 1991 decision to stop?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

What did the UN have to do with the 1991 decision to stop?

From what Bush Sr. has said, nothing. He was trying to appease the Saudis.

[cgross 1]

Actually the wording of the UN resolution for the 91 war did not authorize taking out the Iraqi regiem, only removing them from Kuwait.

Trust me, the US wanted to do it then, but Mr. Bush listened to the resistance and "Unautorization" of the UN and, therefore, backed out.

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Actually the wording of the UN resolution for the 91 war did not authorize taking out the Iraqi regiem, only removing them from Kuwait.

Trust me, the US wanted to do it then, but Mr. Bush listened to the resistance and "Unautorization" of the UN and, therefore, backed out.

My experience in life has been that "trust me" is generally a prelude to a falsehood. Kind of like "I am not a crook". YMMV.

Three times is enemy action

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Hi, Tf15

Quote

to repel the invader, just like Churchill promised.

Agreed. And should I be invaded, I will be out there fighting however I can.

My distinction is that it's not "terrorism", per se, because of the target. The target for the suicide bombing was military, not civilian, not, oh gosh, the WTC, or Montreal or Paris or wherever. Not that they "deserve" it, but if the roles were reversed, and Burbank got invaded, and I felt the need to protect, it wouldn't be the civilians as my target.

In my humble estimation, and it is indeed humble, it is terrorism when innocents are targeted...be it the Mombasa hotel, the WTC, or the Bali bombing.

I looked up the 4th Geneva Convention for the definition of POW. Civilian militias and civilians following military orders and identifiable either by a visible insignia or badge or by carrying a weapon are entitled to POW status if captured, so I'd guess they would not be terrorists. Those hiding their identity as a combatant are not entitled to protection, so I guess it's fair to call them terrorists. Interesting to ponder how this would have applied to the War of Independence.

Three times is enemy action