A 3-Front War?

[jfields 0]

Nobody is trying to say that Iraq's leadership are really a bunch of swell, but misunderstood guys. Not at all. But the timing and motivation are both questionable. Also, part of the problem is the US acting alone to deal with the threats of the world. Our arrogant world policy is directly contributing to threat against us, by stirring up discontent. If all the actions were to come from the UN, then it would more reflect "the world" dealing with "world threats". Now, it looks like the US being a bully to protect oil interests.

[jtval 0]

Quote

If we attack North Korea isn't there an issue with China getting involved? And aren't they a pretty dangerous country to mess with?

Um we have a lot of troops in South korea that iI would be really worried about! even if china doesnt get involved!

My photos

My Videos

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Nobody is trying to say that Iraq's leadership are really a bunch of swell, but misunderstood guys. Not at all. But the timing and motivation are both questionable. Also, part of the problem is the US acting alone to deal with the threats of the world. Our arrogant world policy is directly contributing to threat against us, by stirring up discontent. If all the actions were to come from the UN, then it would more reflect "the world" dealing with "world threats". Now, it looks like the US being a bully to protect oil interests.

I would have to say I agree with you if I didn't know some of the things I know about this situation. Without getting into specifics and drawing this out, I will say this. As much as the Democrats and Liberals out there don't want to believe it, there is a VERY REAL THREAT right now. Our entire Gov't and several others wouldn't be doing all of this unless there was a substatiated reason to do so. Do you honestly believe that Bush woke up one morning and said " I wonder what I'll do today, how about attacking Iraq?" As much as those who oppose him out there want to believe that, that is just not the case. If the general public knew everything it would be chaos in the streets. The stark realities of what can/could possibly unfold right now is un imaginable by the general public. If you knew you would be scared, very scared right now and damn glad we are involved as we are. Not just in America's interest but the worlds as a whole and the reason we're doing it is becasue we're the only ones who can.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[dresherr 0]

That's definitely true! The war on Iraq does have a little to do with oil. But don't you think that the U.N. will step in if Nuclear Weapons come into the picture and biological weapons also!? I agree that this is not just the United States' problem but everyones.

Richy D.

[jtval 0]

Quote

That's definitely true! The war on Iraq does have a lot to do with oil. But don't you think that the U.N. will step in if Nuclear Weapons come into the picture and biological weapons also!?

Richy D.

that would be nice, but
"the rules only tie the hands of those who follow them"
if we follow them and they dont...our hands are tied!

shitty situation anyway you look at it.
Happy Holiday's!

My photos

My Videos

[jfields 0]

Lou,

I'm not saying there aren't threats. You are in a much better position than I am to judge. However, the _appearance_ to the world is that we are being a bully. If American citizens aren't privy to the information that justifies the actions, foriegn citizens sure aren't either. Combine that with the more general anti-American sentiment, and you have to admit that to some degree, we are stirring up our own opposition.

There may be no other choice than what we are doing. But the veil of secrecy may mean that we are losing the PR war even if we are winning the covert ops war. On the world stage, PR means a lot. Sometimes it is the impression we give off that gives impressionable zealots the nudge from disaffected youth to suicide bomber. By singlehandedly being the world's police force, we become the focal point for their retribution.

I'm not suggesting the military tell the public everything. When I was in the Public Affairs Office of the 82d, we got some really stupid phone calls. People would ask, "We know you are going to Somalia. What units are you sending, where precisely are you sending them, what are your deployment dates, and will they be accompanied by armor units?" Stupid shit that made me laugh, before giving out a canned (but true) response about not divulging the information due to the lives of the soldiers that may or may not be involved.

If there is a need for military action, we should do it. But our government needs to multiply our political effort dramatically. While we may be able to handle it all ourselves (I have doubts), we should be going about it under the auspices of the UN. Even if we still send the majority of the troops and provide the majority of the intel, my personal view is that it really ought to be a united response from the world's foremost countries. We shouldn't (and should have to) go it alone.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

...the U.N. will step in if Nuclear Weapons come into the picture and biological weapons also!? I agree that this is not just the United States' problem but everyones.

The UN is not a governmental body, but a cooperative entity that countries are a part of by choice.

If nuclear weapons are involved you will see a significant amount of flex by the five permanent members of the security council, and that's about it. The problem may be everyone's, but there are a few that are "in the know" about how to "do the math" on nukes: USA, UK, France, Russia and China, which happen to be the five most powerful nations on earth. Yes, it's everyone's problem, but if atoms collide, there won't be time for a committee.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[miked10270 0]

OK, serious post this time....

I must admit that I was puzzled at first that Saddam Hussein made a surprise #1 entry in the Christmas public enemy charts! Then again, the US elections are due next November or so... By a strange co-incidence a UK election is about due by then...

The fact is that there is no vote winner like a short, cheap (in terms of casualties) war. Remember the Falklands? Prior to this "war", Margaret Thatcher and the UK Conservative Party was languishing in the polls and were expected to be ousted in the upcoming elections. The victory in the Flaklands changed all that and Thatcher stayed in power for a further 9 years, the Conservatives stayed in power until 1997 despite all the scandal and sleaze (including 2 of their more prominent members being jailed for perverting the course of justice)!

The war in Afghanistan has (thus far) failed to produce the populist result of winning AND being SEEN TO WIN! Bin Laden is still loose.

What the politicians need is a victory, on the principle that there is nothing like a foreign victory to take voters minds off the domestic issues. While I'm not suggesting that Saddam Hussein is someone who I'd like to look after my kids (actually he comes 3rd after Michael Jackson and Pol Pot) I suspect that Iraq is viewed as an "easy" target - weakened by the Kuwait war and 10 years of sanctions.

In conclusion I suspect that our armed forces are not being used to defend our life and principles, they are being used to defend the politicians in power.

Mike D10270.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

we are stirring up our own opposition.

And that, sir, is both the method and the goal. Permanent war!

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Tonto 1]

That factoid is way out of date. The population in China has been declining for over 15 years now, since the mid 80's and the 1 child per family law.

India is now the worlds most populist country with 1.1 billion, up 500 million in the last 19 years.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[hagar 0]

I would be wary of anyone in power counting on any particular war to be fast/decisive/easy.

"The men are in splendid spirits"
-Battle of the Somme

"We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"
-Operation Barabarossa

---
PCSS #10

[dresherr 0]

Remember Vietnam?

[DZBone 0]

Quote

Our entire Gov't and several others wouldn't be doing all of this unless there was a substatiated reason to do so.

You bet. There are at least three.

1. Elections - The George I regime totally mis-timed the Gulf War. They peaked early, and ended up losing to Clinton over economic issues, despite having been hugely popular early in the term. Chaney, Remsfeld and the rest were there for that disappointment, they've learned from their mistakes.

2. Past Shortcomings - Again, the old soldiers miscalculated at the end of the Gulf War, pulling out assuming a revolution would finish the job. It never happened, and they have been frustrated ever since. Nnow that they are back in power, they aim to complete the mission.

3. Present Difficulties - The hunt for Bin Laden et al doesn't have good enough media play to keep the nation's attention (I think they underestimate us, but...). They think we are like children with ADD and need a hot war on the scale of an Iraqi invasion to make it seem like they are doing someting about terrorism.

There are others, like increased police and executive branch powers that every administration has always wanted. With people willing to sacrifice freedom for (imaginary) security, now is the time to get it. Oil is in there somewhere, and dealing with the threat of NBC weapons is probably about 12 on the list.

By the way, where are the isolationist and libertarian Republicans? Perhaps they have seen how the Democrats have self-destructed over sub-ideological differences, or remember their own self-immolation in 92, and are keeping quiet. Good move.

_________________________________________________
If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

[cgross 1]

ALL OF THIS IS NOTHING A FEW HUNDRED NUKES COULDN"T CURE!!!!!

[billvon 2,421]

>ALL OF THIS IS NOTHING A FEW HUNDRED NUKES COULDN"T CURE!!!!!

Very true, but the scary thing is that we're not the only ones with a few hundred nukes. At some point we will have to learn diplomacy over war, because other countries will have the ability to bring the war to us.

[billvon 2,421]

>I don't know who you think has forgotten because the pursuit of UBL
> has not slowed down in the least on the pointy end of the stick.

Rumsfeld has, by his own words - he doesn't even consider it a major conflict any more. It certainly has for british and australian troops - they're leaving and going home. At least one general has been quoted by the Washington Post as saying "we're losing our momentum."

>It was stated up front that this was going to be a long term battle
> with no established "front lines". Rest assured there are a lot of
> people out there right now doing everything they can to stop UBL
> and those who support him in any way shape or form.

I hope so, and I hope that they get the support from our government that they need to finish the job.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Again, the old soldiers miscalculated at the end of the Gulf War, pulling out assuming a revolution would finish the job.

I suspect that we were pressured by Saudi Arabia, our ally at the time, to NOT finish off Sadam. The Saudis don't like Sadam, but they didn't want chaos & sectarian war to erupt next door.

( i wonder who would name their kid "sadam" anyway?? )

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------