 |
| |
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I would like my fellow Americans to read the following article and respond by sharing how they feel about the prospect of war with Iraq.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, after months of some members resisting a new war, now fully back using military force to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Administration officials said in recent interviews that some Joint Chiefs members initially raised some objections or "what ifs." The chiefs worried about casualties, Saddam's likely use of chemical weapons against American troops and an open-ended occupation of Iraq once the dictator is evicted from Baghdad.
But, as the Pentagon's hard-line civilian leadership has pressed the Bush administration policy to remove Saddam, all six chiefs have come to a consensus, two administration officials said.
"The chiefs have come over because they can read the handwriting on the wall," said an administration adviser. "Now the senior leadership is on board."
The adviser said that in past administrations, if a four-star general offered "my best military advice" that war was ill-advised, the civilian leadership was likely to heed the warning.
But the Bush administration is stacked with civilians who believe military force against Iraq is the only viable way to oust Saddam and get rid of his potent arsenal. They do not take such advice as the last word.
These advisers are led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a man who, as one uniformed officer said, "has the guts for war."
The chiefs' unanimity on Iraq comes as the Defense Department is stepping up war planning in anticipation of an invasion, perhaps as early as the winter of 2003.
In war fighting, the chiefs of the four branches, the vice chairman and the chairman principally are advisers to the defense secretary and provide support to the combatant commander. The war-fighting chain of command goes from the president to the defense secretary to the combatant commander.
For Iraq, the commander is Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who heads U.S. Central Command. Gen. Franks briefed President Bush at the White House on Monday night on war options. Central Command runs U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf, as well as in counterterrorist missions in Afghanistan.
Two administration sources said yesterday that the most likely plan would involve about 200,000 air, ground and naval troops, as well as wide-ranging air strikes and aid to indigenous anti-Saddam forces.
Sources say all of President Bush's top national security advisers agree on the need to topple Saddam by covert or overt action. But Mr. Bush has not settled on a war plan, and no attack is imminent, they say.
A linchpin of any final war plan will be psychological-warfare programs to convince Iraqi military commanders that they will suffer great losses if they do not join the fight against Saddam or, at least, refuse to take up arms.
One administration official said that if this strategy is to work, the United States must build a sizable ground force in Kuwait.
"A bigger force they put there sends an unambiguous message — 'If you fight, you will die,'" the official said. "The smart thing to do is to put a large number of troops on the border."
The source also said that Bush civilian appointees are finding that it is not always easy to find generals who, like them, believe there is no alternative, in some instances, to war.
"The system has created a military that is a professional bureaucracy," said the official, who asked not to be named. "Once you make one star, they start sending you to charm school."
Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters on Monday to be skeptical of reports that nations in the region would not support U.S. action against Saddam.
"I think if you sat down with the leadership of any country over there that you'd find they have a very low regard for that fellow," Mr. Rumsfeld told representatives of the National Association of Black Journalists. The Pentagon released a transcript of the interview yesterday.
"You'd also find they're much smaller countries, and they're much weaker," he said, in a reference to Kuwait, among other neighbors.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, propelling the United States into a war against Saddam that lingers today in the form of enforcing northern and southern no-fly zones.
"When you have a neighbor that is that big and has that big an army and has chemical weapons and has used them on its neighbors then it's like the little guy in the neighborhood's fairly careful about what he says publicly," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I don't know of anyone I've talked to out in the region who would walk across the street to shake Saddam Hussein's hand."
Mr. Bush justifies tough talk about Iraq on the grounds that Saddam is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons that could one day be used against the United States.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Frankychan
|
 |
In the Kingdom of Hawaii (CPA Member)
Sep 2001
time: 19:21
|
|
(posting from the 50th state...i.e-Hawaii)
*sigh* and *deep breath*
Let me just start by giving my own opinion.
I believe that the United States, even though Iraq is a designated hostile power, is TOTALLY wrong here. Having our military overtly invade a separate sovereign entity is wrong. I personally that even though Iraq may be pursuing technology that will lead to nuclear weapons, the U.S. should not overtly use military power against a foreign country.
I personally believe that in the worlds eye, WE (the U.S.) will be perceived as the aggressor nation and should be repelled. Nevermind all these theories that "Dubya" wants to start a war to get the American ppl to overlook other domestic policies......the current U.S. administration should look at alternatives.
Even though Iraq may be 100% proven guilty, it still doesn't mean we should go in there and invade them. North Korea is considered an aggressor nation to South Korea, but you do not see Seoul invading Pyongyang. Neither do you see Argentina invading further British holdings (even though they still consider the Faulkland Islands Argentinian). My point is, putting social beliefs aside, America is WRONG in the global sense to invade Iraq just to oust Saddam Hussein.
Should not the U.S. invade Libya to get rid of Kaddafi (sp?) since he is considered a hostile nation against the U.S.? Shouldn't we get rid of Comrade Fidel Castro since he is considered an enemy of the U.S.? Well....we aren't getting rid of them right now because, quite frankly, IMPO, Iraq is fresh in the American's public eye and a "war" with them will help the populace forget about troubles at home (the Stock Market, Enron, WorldCom, AOL TimeWarner, e-t-c.)
Simply put, If we absolutely have to get rid of So-damn-insane (Saddam Hussein), we should have our elite units cooperate with allied nations to rid the world of this menace.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
As a representative of the 52nd state I didnt bother to read the article, but I support any action against Iraq. The region needs a reshuffle.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
How do you know these are the worst?
You're just made to believe they are.
You don't have much info on the others and you have tons of nothing but damaging info for those two.
Playing with morality and human ethics is a part of realpolitik too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Example: US cries about human rights abuses in China.
China is an enemy so US uses its human rights violations against her.
Example #2: US keeps quiet about human rights abuses in Turkey.
Turkey is an ally, so its human rights abuses are muted.
There are plenty more examples.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
paiktis22, Can you say that to yourself, and sleep well after it? |
I think you should be having problems sleeping unless you are in oblivion.
quote:
The politic stuff you talk about results in that nothing happens. These people suffer, most in North Korea (I have listen to people who have been in North Korea illegally) and people like you are the reason that nothing happens. |
If I am the reasonthese people will not be carpet bombed then my place in paradise is assured.
As I said there are other countries with much more severe human rights abuses but you don;t know it because they are not the enemies of the US.
Actually many repressive regimes HAVE the BACKING of the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
The point is that the human rights abuses "justification" is used for the US to achieve its aims against its enemies.
In cases where the regims are friends of the US the abuses are muted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
Maybe Iraq is just the first step, or maybe it is meant to send a message to certain other countries...
Anyway, not to sound arrogant or anything else, but if the world (Europe) doesn't want to help the U.S., what does it matter? And the world's opinion of the U.S. doesn't really matter that much; why should we worry about the opinions of people who constantly rail against us in the first place?
Think of this as just another thing for the anti-Americans to talk about.
And Paiktis, I realize that there are some double standards, but the U.S. is not the only one who is guilty. World War II, the United States as well as the UK and the other Allied countries allied with the Soviet Union, because Stalin was considered the lesser evil to the Third Reich. That could be argued, as the USSR has killed tens of millions of people, but.
While I think that the U.S. should ask it's allies to stop human rights abuses, etc, I think you have to bring into account the fact that China has a billion man army and a nuclear arsenal, and they don't exactly love the U.S. or it's ally, Taiwan. (Esp. now...)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2002 17:10
|