 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
for fook's sake
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
He may have wanted to (launch everything he had at Saudi and Israel), but by the time we stopped advancing, he lacked the infrastructure to do *anything*. His command structure had all but vanished, and his forces (the ones who weren't surrendering en mass) were in total chaos. They couldn't have launched an organized offensive at that stage if their lives had depended on it, and certainly nothing outside their borders.
We had them bottled up totally, and if Stormin' Norman was, in fact, only a half hour from the capitol, we could have nailed the old buzzard to a tree before he could have even thought to respond.
Afterwards, the international community would have been shocked and outraged, to be sure, but if (and here's the big if) we did it right....hauled in the UN inspectors, guarded them with the points of our own guns and those of the coalition forces, and let the people of Iraq set up a new governing body, the backlash could have been easily contained, IMO.
Now tho....whew....no way.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I hope we don't have to fight. I hope Saddam backs down. Krushev backed down over Cuba when Kennedy stood his ground.
Saddam has had no reason to back down before now. If he does we can thank the character of George W. Bush.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andrew1999
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
I hope we don't have to fight. I hope Saddam backs down. Krushev backed down over Cuba when Kennedy stood his ground.
Saddam has had no reason to back down before now. If he does we can thank the character of George W. Bush. |
He has no reason to back down now. We've told him many times that it's his head we want, not weapons inspectors. Why should he cooperate?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Oh....quite so! I'm sure the forces in and around Bagdad would have put up more of a fight than regulars, but IIRC, it was one of those elite divisions of Rep. Guard troops who made the decision to dig their tanks into stationary positions (which promptly got them flanked and hammered). I'm just saying that without access to his infrastructure, and with no Iraqui planes flying, the man had no reliable information. No way to reconnoiter to see how close or far off we were from Bagdad. *We* knew we were half an hour to an hour away, but I'd be willing to wager that *he* didn't know that, nor much of anything else, except that his army disintegrated around him in record time.
But, your point is well-made that he was likely not in the capitol, and so snagging him would not have been as easy as sailing thru the city gates.
Still, reduced to some miserable bunker elsewhere, cut off from all communications with what few troops remained active in the field, he could not have launched anything more than a token offensive in any case, I wouldn't imagine.
Conjecture at this point (or, in keeping with the spirit of the times we're talking about, should I say "at this juncture"  but fascinating conjecture)
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I have heard a few members of Congress say things like:
"3 weeks of bombing and 1 week on the ground"
In fact, Clinton said that also, along with the concern that Saddam would use or give away WOMD.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
I hope we don't have to fight. I hope Saddam backs down. Krushev backed down over Cuba when Kennedy stood his ground.
Saddam has had no reason to back down before now. If he does we can thank the character of George W. Bush. |
Back down for what? The US wants regime change, pure and simple. The only way for him to "back down" is to commit suicide.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
I don't know why but I can report that almost 100% of the people I know here in America was disgusted with it. I think in the end that is why George Bush lost his reelection bid.
It was a mistake. |
Not even close. There was no widespread consensus that Saddam should have been taken out, and Bush lost his reelection bid because the economy tanked and people blamed him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I think you are wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Promethus
|
 |
Battle Creek, Michigan
Jan 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
Another voice - from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/13/o...e8688e1cf031d1d
Where Iraq Fits in the War on Terror
By MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
WASHINGTON — The core of President Bush's forcefully delivered message on Iraq at the United Nations yesterday was irrefutable. Saddam Hussein is a serial liar, a bully and a threat to peace. He has used chemical weapons, and he yearns to impress an Arab world that despises him by building a deliverable nuclear bomb.
The president made a strong case for international action that results either in Iraqi compliance with its obligations or the establishment of a new and, ultimately, democratic government in Baghdad. There should be bipartisan backing for such a policy here at home, and the president wisely has chosen to solicit global support instead of attempting to go it alone.
I hope, however, that the president will not be pushed by his hard-line advisers into an unwise timetable for military action. We should pick this fight at a moment that best suits our interests. And right now, our primary interest remains the thorough destruction and disruption of Al Qaeda and related terrorist networks.
Earlier this week, the International Institute of Strategic Studies released a summary of Iraq's military capabilities that foreshadowed the president's words yesterday. Iraq likely has significant quantities of biological warfare agents and some chemical munitions. It is striving to acquire or develop nuclear weapons, but there is no evidence it has succeeded. It may have a dozen missiles that could be used to threaten nearby states.
Saddam Hussein is the enemy we know. Since the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, each time Mr. Hussein has pushed, we have pushed back. Today, American and British planes enforce no-flight zones over 40 percent of his country and a maritime force prevents weapons from reaching Iraq by sea. Saddam Hussein's military is far weaker than it was a decade ago. And he must surely be aware that if he ever again tries to attack another country he will be obliterated. All that is grounds for calm, but not complacency.
The president said he is willing to work with the Security Council. I hope that will include an explicit call for United Nations weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, although I doubt Iraq will accept them. By promoting that option first, the administration would strengthen the diplomatic case for subsequent action. As the president pointed out, during the past decade Iraq has failed to comply with a host of Security Council directives. If Baghdad persists in its defiance, the president has rightly placed the burden on those who oppose the use of force to explain how else compliance may be assured. One cannot insist on the council's central role in promoting international security and law, then look the other way when the will of the council is repeatedly defied.
Although the president's speech yesterday was persuasive in many respects, he was neither specific nor compelling in his effort to link Saddam Hussein to other, more urgent threats. As evil as Mr. Hussein is, he is not the reason antiaircraft guns ring the capital, civil liberties are being compromised, a Department of Homeland Defense is being created and the Gettysburg Address again seems directly relevant to our lives.
In the aftermath of tragedy a year ago, the chief executive told our nation that fighting terrorism would be "the focus of my presidency." That — not Iraq — remains the right focus.
During the past four years, Al Qaeda has attacked Americans here at home, in Africa and in the Middle East. We still do not know where its top operatives are or what they might be planning. There is evidence that Qaeda members are returning to Afghanistan, where thousands of Taliban supporters still live and lawlessness prevails. We have not given the government of Hamid Karzai even a fraction of the help it needs to make Afghanistan a permanent terrorist-free zone. Creation of an effective worldwide antiterror coalition remains a work in progress. Restructuring our intelligence services, law enforcement agencies and military to defeat the terrorist threat continues to be in the design stage.
Obviously, we cannot wait until terrorism is entirely eradicated to deal with Saddam Hussein. But it makes little sense now to focus the world's attention and our own military, intelligence, diplomatic and financial resources on a plan to invade Iraq instead of on Al Qaeda's ongoing plans to murder innocent people. We cannot fight a second monumental struggle without detracting from the first one.
The administration should take the time necessary to broaden support for its Iraq policy, respond to Congressional inquiries, strengthen Iraqi opposition groups, fine-tune military planning, develop a coherent blueprint for the post-Hussein era, identify the massive resources that will be required to fund the war and its aftermath, and conduct diplomacy aimed at cooling tensions in the Middle East. If United Nations inspectors are again rebuffed by Iraq, we should also give notice that we will destroy without warning any facilities in that country that we suspect are being used to develop prohibited arms. Even if those suspicions are later proved wrong, the blame should fall on Iraq for denying access, not on the United States for trying to enforce the Security Council's will. In the same vein, we should make it clear that anyone who assists Iraq's nuclear program will be considered an enemy of the United States.
At the United Nations yesterday, the president began the job of spelling out the what and why of our policy toward Baghdad. The wisdom of that policy, however, will ultimately hinge on when he chooses to act.
Madeleine K. Albright was secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 and United States ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:22
|
|
I remain opposed for three reasons.
1. It is not now in our national interest. We currently have bigger fish to fry, such as Afghanistan and Palestine. Saddam is not going anywhere and has not proven he can hit us. Al Queda has already flown the coop, and already proven they can hit us. That means you deal with them first. Next, some kind of progress on Palestine would appear to be necessary before doing anything else in the region. (Something along the lines of US role in 56 Suez would be nice) If we dont act here, the Palestine issue will certainly outlive Saddam, and will certainly have more repercussions for US policy. After these issues are addressed, then it might be in our interest to address Saddam.
2. We still have diplomatic cards to play. Our goal should be firm, binding committments to comply with all UN resolutions. Inspectors should be able to open any door on five minutes notice, period. If Saddam tries to scam the resolutions, then he must face serious and certain consequences. But given point #1, we should still be a year or two away from pushing this.
3. Wars are politically and economically expensive propositions. It is not in our interest to undertake them until we have exhausted effective diplomacy. The Congressional vote for intervention in 1991 was very close.
My hope is that the current saber rattling is intended to lead to a good cop (UN) bad cop (US) routine with respect to Iraq. By getting real compliance with resolutions the UN can keep the US from beating the hell out of Iraq. But the timing is still off, and this might be rating the GWB's administration too smart by half.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
Saddam was spared in 1991, in part, because he agreed to "cooperate." But rather than cooperate, he chose defiance.
To those who believe that the UN has a role to play in this world other than to occupy space, absorb money and waste people's time, you must agree that defiance cannot go on indefinitely, especially when the nature of the defiance grows more deadly and the cost to suppress it become almost unacceptable.
Saddam's defiance of UN SC resolutions imposed at the end of a war is what makes this case different, Paiktis, from other dictatorial regimes we have in the world. We are facing a challenge not unlike the challenge Hitler presented to the WWI allies when he began to violate and undo the treaty of Versailles.
History's judgment is that the British and French failed to act soon enough, when the form of defiance was small. They chose to act so late that Germany nearly won. Their tardiness cost tens of millions their lives.
Is history to repeat it self? Now is the time to act - before Saddam acquires nuclear weapons. To never act is not an option if the UN is to remain relevant. To give Saddam one more chance is reasonable if doing so does not result in undue delay. To delay action until it is too late will likely cost millions their lives one way or the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
I'm no expert on the subject, but as I understand it, the logic goes something like this:
Sadam has a budget of $X dollars a year. Sure, he's allowed to buy all the food and meds he needs, but his main goal is weapons procurement. Not an easy thing with our air monitoring and naval presence.
In the face of that difficulty, the price goes up on delivery of weapons systems, and so Sadam's limited budget doesn't go as far as he'd like.
By using money for guns, instead of butter, Sadam buys his weapons, but lacks the fundage to keep his people fed. What food IS bought is no doubt, given to the military first. The people are left to fend for themselves, which means they starve (the desert climate being less-than-friendly to farming activities).
End result: Sadam builds his military apparatus back up (albiet at a slower pace, thanks to the sanctions and accompanying military blockade), and his people starve.
That's the reader's digest accounting, at any rate....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
Vel, the element you are missing is that we have absolutely no right to put sanctions on Iraq. Yes, Saddam wants to build up his military - but it got trashed in the Persian Gulf War by the US, another war that was absolutely none of our business. He's rightly worried that the US will come back in again.
Granted, food for his people is more important, but who are we to restrict his oil sales, establish no fly zones, etc.? Who died and made us God?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
The right to do so stems from the fact that we were ASKED by a soveriegn nation to come in and kick some a$$. We answered that call. |
So what? It's still none of our business. 40+ Americans died in this little romp through the desert, not to mention thousands who have been affected by Gulf War Syndrome.
And all over oil, never mind the fact that we can buy it from one Middle Eastern dictator just as well as another.
quote:
In response, and in order to attempt to enforce the peace treaty, sanctions were put in place. |
It was an immoral peace treaty, forced by the victor at the end of a gun. Sorta like Versailles in that respect. Just because we're stronger doesn't make our actions right.
quote:
These have not had the desired effect, but they stem from our legal (according to international law) right to attempt to enforce the peace. |
We might have a legal right, but we have no moral right, which is ultimately what matters.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-09-2002 06:45
|