BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:41 AM

I wouldn't be so sure Teribus. Things have been busy on Diego Garcia and in Kuwait, and it is looking very much from this side of the pond as if the Bush administration will move against Iraq in the Jan/Feb window for best weather conditions, just like last time.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 11:31 AM

Fine with me, T.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 09:01 AM

It's now 15.11.02 - From the UK's contribution, HMS Ocean is laid up for re-fit, modification of the UK's Challenger II's for desert operations takes four months - work hasn't started yet.

Maximum number of carriers (USN) for operations at that time would be three - total of only 255 aircraft max.

12.01.03 - Don't think so Bobert, logistic problems remain the same as they have always been and they would have insufficient numbers, even if they could supply them.

Your man has accomplished what he needed to do - What about letting the UNMOVIC guys do their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 08:14 AM

Thanks, T, fir the edgy-cation. I was jus funnin' with ya and now look what I've learned...

Your turn, GUEST... Now I'm funnin' with you...

We have a contest by the local news channel for folk to guess the date and time of the first snow. Anyone up for the date and time of the US's invasion?

I'm going with January 12th, 2:30 am Iraqi time...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 07:38 AM

From my post above the line - "Emblem grand of those who on it -" should of course read - "Emblem grand of those who won it -"

The "youths who stayed from Flodden," were the boys of the town who were considered too young for military service with the Earl of Drumlanrig (Douglas). Their leader was George Turnbull, a boy of either 14 or 15 years old, some of those he led were much younger.

At a place called Hornshole they met up with and routed the men of Hexham Priory, and captured their flag. When the Scottish and English Parliaments united in 1707, the flag was returned to Hexham as a token of reconcilliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 02 - 03:28 AM

Hi there Guest of 14.11.02 - 12:54, Not bad at all, although the two characters linked are Odin and Tyr, not Odin and Thor (both sons of Odin, Thor after whom Thursday gets named, and Tyr after whom Tuesday gets named). Of his two sons Thor was the stronger and more quick tempered, Tyr was considered the braver.

The poem by James Hogg you refer to, also exists as a song, sung at the Hawick Common Riding. It is a potted version of the history of how the town became a town (Burgh of Barony, as opposed to a Royal Burgh).

For those interested I have copied it out below by way of adding a musical slant to an extremely unmusical thread.

TERIBUS
by James Hogg


Scotia felt thine ire, O Odin;
On the bloody field of Flodden;
There our fathers fell with honour,
Round their King and Country's banner.

Teribus ye Teri-Odin,
Sons of heroes slain at Flodden,
Imitating Border bowmen,
Aye defend your rights and Common.

'Twas then Drumlanrig, gen'rous donor,
Gave (immortal be his honour),
What might sooth Hawick's dire disaster,
Land for tillage, peats and pasture.

Sacred was the widow's portion,
Sacred long from all extortion;
Frugal temperance urged no cesses,
Birthday rates, nor baillies' messes.

After Flodden was decided,
Surrey had his troops divided,
When he turned them loose to plunder,
O, heaven just! Why slept thy thunder?

At the word each fiend advances,
Flodden's blood yet dimmed their lances;
Entering hamlet, town or village,
Marked their way with blood and pillage.

Far they spread this dire disorder,
O'er fair Scotia's Alpine border,
O'er the vales of Tweed and Teviot,
'Tween Moffat hills and lofty Cheviot.

Hawick they left in ruins lying,
Nought was heard but widows crying:
Labour of all kinds neglected;
Orphans wandering unprotected.

All were sunk in deep dejection,
Non to flee to for protection;
Till some youths who stayed from Flodden,
Rallied up by Teriodin.

Armed with sword, with bow and quiver,
Shouting, "Vengence now or never"
Off they marched in martial order
Down by Teviot's flowery border.

Nigh where Teviot falls sonorous
Into Hornshole dashing furious,
Lay their foes with spoil encumbered;
All was still each sentry slumbered.

Hawick destroyed, their slaughtered sires -
Scotia's wrongs each bosom fires -
On they rush to be victorious,
Or to fall in battle glorious.

Down they threw their bows and arrows,
Drew their swords like veteran heroes,
Charged the foe with native valour,
Routed them and took their colour.

Now with spoil and honours laden,
Well revenged for fatal Flodden,
Home they marched, this flag displaying -
Teribus before them playing.

Numbers more our heroes aiding,
Soon they checked all base marauding;
English bands, in wild disorder,
Fled for safety o'er the border!

High the trump of fame did raise them,
Poets of those times did praise them -
Sung their feats in muirland ballants;
Scotia's boast was, "Hawick's Callants."

Scarce a native glen or mountain -
Rugged rock or running fountain,
But have seen those youths with bravery,
Fight the tools of southern slavery.

Thus we boast a Muir and colour
Won by deeds of hardy valor -
Won in fields where victory swithered -
Won when Scotia's laurels withered.

Annual since our flag's been carried
Round our Muir by men unmarried,
Emblem grand of those who on it -
Matrimonial hands would stain it.

Magistrates! Be faithful trustees,
Equal poise the scales of justice,
See our common rightly guidit,
quirky lairds nae mair divide it.

"Hawick shall triumph 'mid destruction,"
Was a Druid's dark prediction;
Strange the issues that unrolled it
Centuries after he'd foretold it.

Back to fable-shaded eras,
We can trace a race of heroes,
Hardy, brave, inured to perils,
Foreign wars and feudal quarrels.

Spite of levelling conflagration,
Spite of swelling inundation,
Spite of frequent lawless pillage,
Hawick arose by trade and tillage.

Imitating Rome and Sparta,
Practised patriotic virtue,
Wisely taught each art and science,
Bravely bade her foes defiance.

Peace be thy portion, Hawick for ever!
Thine arts, thy commerce, flourish ever!
Down to latest ages send it -
HAWICK WAS EVER INDEPENDENT!

Hawick was ever independent!
Hawick was ever independent!
Down to latest ages send it -
Hawick was ever independent!

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:35 PM

Doug:

Your boy will start his little war (ahhh, not to be so little afetrall...) is one Iraqi passes gass...

Take it to the bank.
Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: DougR
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:07 PM

Lurker: I don't think Bush will "start anything" unless there is a substantial breach of the agreement.

You paint a much bleaker picture of what will happen should it become necessary to invade Iraq than I believe will happen though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 03:12 PM

Latest word from Baghdad is that the inspectors get to come in. Hopefully, this means that all of our worrying about how a war might run will come to naught. If Bush does decide that something Hussein does is a meterial breach, however, the inevitable result will be vicious house-to-house. With Saddam having shown willingness to comply with inspectors, the populace will support him against the imperialist aggressor. Instead of 132,000 combatants, a substantial portion of four million will take up arms, and when there aren't any noncombatant civilians, casualties are appalling on both sides. All we can do is hope that Bush lets the inspectors do their jobs and doesn't start anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 02:33 PM

Heck, GUEST, I didn't mean to put you through all that labor. I was playin' more than anything else, with the T. I'm not all that hung up about identities as some folks seem to be. I take the posts as they come. They are either of interest or not. I have tried to get you to at least go by "GUEST A" or "GUEST B" because you have substance and a l0ot of folks just miss it because of their *guest biases*. But you'll notice I'm not buggin' you naymore because I figured out that you have your resons and because you're not gonna do it anyway. Plus, I can recognize you from your thoughts and writing style.

Yo, T: 132,000 SRG and FS troops, given their superior position coupled with the fact that these troops are pretty well armed for an urban war scenerio, I'm really hopin' and prayin' that Bush doesn't push and push until some inspector gets into a little arguemnt and then just goes ahead with what I'm afarid he wants very much to do.

Yeah, I agree with you that the man-on-the-street interviews should not be held as too reliable but would argue that with a general population that is not armed, is gonna have a tough time on the resistence end. If this were America, no problem, every kid worth his salt owns an assault rifle. (And I don't want to see this coming back as a quote, T. It is an obvious statement, but does point out the differences betwee the two societies.) So the unarmed Iraqis, I think, will go along with the game until an Apache flies down the street with the guns a'blazin' then I think you've just lost the support of the other 3 1/2 million Iraqis that you are countin' on.

That would be very bad indeed. Worse than attempting an MTM stategy, because now, rather than photos of folks who look like they could be just sleeping you're gonna have bloody photos of dead folks. Bad PR, not to mention just, ahhh bad.

But to round' this out, lets hope there is a level of sanity in the White House. Bush will get over it if he doesn't get to attack and may actually come out of it with a little, though very little, more respect than he has now by the many millions of folks who are against this war.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 12:54 PM

Mudcat member Teribus apparently doesn't want to answer the query "what's a Teribus". I don't know why, but I'll honor his/her desire to keep their personal identity out of the debate. I have some personal knowledge of how out of hand the obsession with unmasking posters can get here in Mudcat, in an effort to make the person the subject of debate, rather than debating the ideas.

My own curiosity was aroused when you asked Bobert, because I had a vague recollection of a mention of Teribus in "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". However, I can't find my copy of the book! So I can't say definitively if that is where I first heard of Teribus.

The simplest answer (which may well be the wrong one, I admit, as I'm certainly not knowledgeable about the Scottish borders and/or it's mythologies) is as follows.

'Teribus' is the title of a poem by Scottish borders poet and writer James Hogg (1770-1835). In the opening stanza, the poet invokes one Teribus, which appears to be a fanciful combination of both Thor and Odin.

Hogg's first major collection of poetry was titled "The Mountain Bard; consisting of Ballads and Songs, founded on Facts and Legendary Tales" which could explain the poet's fanciful combination of Thor and Odin. Hogg was one of the Scottish and British Romantics of the era, who did, in fact, often combine fact with legendary tales, to great romantic nationalist effect.

If I'm mis-remembering a reference to Teribus in "Hitchhikers Guide" it may instead be a filk reference, or a sci/fi and/or fantasy novel reference. Or I may have come across the poem in my British and Scottish literary fascinations.

I'm a big fan of sticking with discussions of the issues, rather than discussions about the posters presenting them in a debate. The discussion deteriorates so quickly once the poster becomes an object of derision and ridicule, which happens near constantly in this forum, once one side/person feels it/themself losing ground.

The Mudcat member Teribus, while I usually disagree with his/her politics, is a formidable opponent, and so it makes sense that someone would challenge his/her identity sooner or later. Lepus Rex referred to this behavior the other day, when referring to the "Mudcat obsession with unmasking trolls and their agendas."

It is my hope the information I've presented will be enough to satisfy the curiousity.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 11:56 AM

Some further points that should not be over-looked Bobert

1. The bulk of forces than may be viewed as remaining loyal to Saddam Hussein are the SRG and the FS - Internal Security Troops, specifically raised by Saddam Hussein to protect himself from his own people. They are the ones, who for the last ten years have been hauling people off the street, torturing them and throwing them into jail. In the event of them holing up amongst that population, how much assistance would you give them - you might not like their opposition all that much, but they weren't the ones that threw you into jail.

2. The population of Baghdad is just under 3.9 million, RG, SRG & FS number around 132,000. For them to occupy every building in Baghdad would spread them too thin for them to be effective.

3. The tribal set up of the country. SRG & FS units are recuited solely from Saddam's own people, not just anybody can join, so there is not a limitless number of recruits. In the plan leaked by the Pentagon, one of the operations was based in the North with it's main objective being Takrit (Saddam's home town). The traditional line of loyalty goes family, village, tribe. If I was among their number and threatened with attack, I know where I'd head for - it would not be Baghdad - I'd elect to get amongst people who I knew were friendly.

4. The man in the street interviews could be somewhat influenced by the fact that should that man in the street say anything other than what is politically acceptable he is liable to be in for a fairly hard time once the reporter has concluded the interview and left. I do not believe that the conditions under which interviews are conducted are the same in Baghdad as they would be say in the USA or the UK.

I still believe that there will not be a war, provided the inspectors are allowed to get on and do their job. I sincerely hope that that will prove to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 11:17 AM

Like I've said before, T, I hopr you are correct in you analysis of what will occur. You do over look a few things which I'd like to take just a moment here to reiterate;

1. You MTM (Moscow Theater Model) is not a comparable situation to Bagdad. With the MTM you had bad guys holed (with mostly *Russian civians) up in one building surrounded by the good guys (i.e. fellow citizens.)

2. Now in Bagdad, you are going to have every building (occupied by a mix of bad guys and folks that may just get razed enough over being attacked to become bad guys themselves) in a city completele filled with bad guys, folks who become so razed over being attacked that they become bad guys and the rest, unarmed civilians who have little to say since they do not have guns. Not exactly the MTM.

3. I was listening to Pacifica this morning and the reporter was talking to the man-on-the-street in Bagdad and the feeling there is that the US is going to attack Iraq. Food rations for two months have been distributed along with fuel for cooking and other supplies that would suggest that the Iraqis plan is to hold Bagdad and bring the attackers into Bagdad.

4. Lastly, T-Bird, the impression I got from listening to the interviews is that Saddam's PR folks have apparently done a pretty good PR job on the average Iraqi and the prevailing attitude is that the US will attack Iraq. This does not play well with theories of Iragis runningm into the streets singing "God Bless America" and waving American flags.

Just some food for thought, T.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 02 - 10:38 AM

The prospect of gassing civilians in Baghdad was raised by Bobert.

What I said in reply was as follows:

"The model by the way Bobert only held good in so much that you had a group of people out-numbered by 17 to 1, in a confined area. The bulk of the number do not want to be there and have no particular affinity with armed men holding them (remember your assessment was that the RG, SRG & FS personnel would treat the population of Baghdad as "shields" or hostages). Your prediction was of countless thousands of US "boys" coming home in C-5's in body bags - how many casualties did the Russian Security Forces suffer Bobert.

Now the variances to the model. The hostages are not inside one building but a number of buildings, the population out-number the RG, SRG & FS personnel, not by 17:1 but by 30:1. To fight they will have to keep one eye on their hostages and the other on the troops coming in. That reduces their effectiveness to fifty percent without a shot being fired. They also have to sleep and eat. I don't think all that many will want to die, either hostages or Saddam's lads - they didn't last time, the same was true in Kabul and Khandahar, and these were Osama's proteges. Oh yeah, "We wish for death, as you wish for life" - they've yet to prove it in any way shape or form as an armed force confronted with an armed force - its a great deal easier against soft targets.

Now NicoleC's good question Bobert - not so good really:

"I'm curious how many of you who are advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians to achieve political ends were upset when American civilians were slaughtered to achieve political ends on April 19, 1995 or September 11, 2001?"

Point 1
No-one is advocating the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi's are being offered every opportunity to ensure that that does not happen - all they have to do is comply with what they signed up to do back in 1991.

Point 2
The attainment of what political ends were being sought on 19th April 1995 and on 11th September 2001? "

My apologies Kevin I could not find the posting you referred to above. But I have never advocated, or suggested that which you assumed.

The American Administration has now basically achieved what it set out to do:

1. New UNSC Resolution (1441) in place and accepted by Iraq.

2. Resumption of the Weapons Inspection programme.

It will be interesting to see what the Iraqi declaration states when it is delivered on the 8th December.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 03:30 PM

I got the same *impression*, McGrath, but if there's one thing about the Ter it's his or her amazing revisionist skills. That why he or she write so much stuff. T-ster figures if there's enough words that he or she has written, then there's bound to be some saving loophole that T-eezer can pull out when cornered.

Ter does that with us, too, in taking what we say completely out of context, throwing the danged thing in a word blender for good measure, and then spit 'em back at us as if we really said that stuff the way Ter would like for folks to think we said it.

Now, I know this is gonna get the T-Bird real cranky and T's gonna take some of what I have just said here and in about two or three days when I can't remember exactly where it was that I said this stuff, there Teri will have some of this taken out of context, run through the T-Blender and well.... ahhhh... the beat goes on!

Sorry, LH.

I'm trying to be good.

But danged!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 01:34 PM

In Moscow I pointed out to Bobert that the Russian Security forces had suffered no casualties.

I took it from that post of yours, Teribus, that you thought that the way the Russians had dealt with the theatre episode was in line with the way invading forces should deal with situations where Iraqi fighters were holed up in apartment buildings. And when I posted on that assumption, I note that in your post commenting on what I said, you didn't say I'd misunderstood your point.

I suspect that American casualties will in fact be kept down, if it comes to war. I suspect that civilian casualties will be correspondingly high, but that high explosives rather than gas will be the favoured method.

And once again, I hope you are right about it not coming to war. (And which of us is right about the probabilities can never be solved really, regardless of what actually happens.)

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 12:46 PM

1,675,848 angels...1,675,,849 angels...1,675,8.......................

Sorry, LH, were you talking to me?

Ahhh, yeah, you're right BUT T-eezer takes stuff out on context and presents it as truth. He say's I tried to muscle away his 1st Ammendment rights but if anyone would reread my post of 12Nov02, 03:03PM they will see that is no where close to what I said.

Bad Teribus, bad!

What I said was something along the lines of ifinz the T-Bird is part og those responsible for coming up with the plans to invade Irag that he should "spend more time at the office and less time arguing with a bunch of folk singers." He leaves out the first part of the sentence which is the *qualifier*.

And while I'm at it, LH, can you tell me waht a Teribus is anyway? I know about Teriplanes (Teriplane Blues) but I didn't think they made a bus, but maybe they did. Nevermind! I'll ask T.

Yo, T, what's a Teribus?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 11:56 AM

Now, guys (teribus & Bobert), let's not get petty! :-) We can waste a lot of time counting how many angels are on the head of a given pin. The thing that really burns me is when I'm typing furiously for 10 minutes or so, then hit the "submit" button...and find out several hours later that I left the word "not" out of the crucial sentence in my argument!!!

EEEEEYAAAAGHHHH!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 11:47 AM

Well danged Bobbie:

"I do distinctly remeber you making reference to the Moscow theater stategy as one that could be applied in Bagdad."

As you didn't bother to read it your recollection is incorrect. Your contention was that SRG & FS would use the general populace of Baghdad as human shields in the event of an attack, thereby guaranteeing that civilian casualties would prove unacceptable to world opinion. I gave the example as a model with respect to anticipated coalition casualties, I also detailed the variances between that model and a prospective "Battle of Baghdad". The model had Hostage takers outnumbered by hostages in a ratio of 17:1, In Baghdad the RG, SRG & FS would be outnumbered 30:1. I did not, nor have I ever, advocated the use of gas.

You ask, "Perhaps you could refresh my memory where I have tried to say you don't have a right to express your opinions."

Certainly:

"...you should spend more time at the office and less time arguing with a bunch of folk singers..."

Your words Bob?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:59 AM

Mind you Bush's defensive policy is something along the lines of "Quick get all the waggons around in a circle.....".

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 10:50 AM

Well, danged, Ter! I hope you are right about this thing not turnin' into a hot war.

Now as to rereading everything you have written? No way! I've got a day job allready but I do distinctly remeber you making reference to the Moscow theater stategy as one that could be applied in Bagdad.

And, as per usual, Ter, you go accusing me of trying to elbow you out on your rights to express yourself. I do wonder where you come up with this stuff. Very imaginative, T-ster, but not well graounded in fact. Perhaps you could refresh my memory where I have tried to say you don't have a right to express your opinions.

And lastly, again, please no long homework assignments. Like I said, I have a job allready, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 02 - 09:01 AM

Bobert,

When have I ever contended that my arguements are "unchallengable"?

"War isn't rocket science." - No it isn't - it's a damn sight more complex.

"I heard not long ago from a General with combat experience that before the war you plan, plan, plan but after the first shot most of the plans go to the rewrite folks. The US doesn't exactly have a model here that presents it with too many clear paths to a quick victory. I'm not saying this. Retired Generals are saying this. Current generals are saying this."

I know from one of your posts in another thread associated with this topic that you don't read my posts Bobert, but maybe you should, because I too have been saying exactly the same thing, discussed it at length with NicoleC if memory serves me correctly. You rubbish it because you fervently believe that a war is inevitable - I on the other hand do not think that way - it is by no means inevitable.

"I can not as a reasonable intellegent person to think that all of these concerns (that have been reported) are just smoke screens, nor should you,"

Again Bobert go back and read what I have said, particularly with regard to unilateral action by America with regard to military intervention in Iraq unsupported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia (Who, by the way, have clearly stated that, even with a UN Sanctioned strike against Iraq, it would not allow UN forces territorial access from which to launch that attack).

Now with regard to who I, or who I do not, enter into a discussion with, in an open forum. I would venture to state that that is outwith your gift to grant or deny, it is my right, same as everyone else's - Got that? Hmmmmmmmmm.

Finally, as to:

"Gassin' entire cities ain't gonna cut it, Ter." When did I state that it would (Again read what I have written), Saddam has tried it in the past though, hasn't he? Hmmmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:33 PM

"Impeach Earl Warren!" Sorry, GUEST, but can't see that bumper sticker on the back of your car... Jus funnin'.

Know what you mean. Take what you can. I"m, on a committee composed completely, ahh, with the exception of yours truely, conservative Repubs. Go figure? But it the hand I've been dealt and it;s the hand I'll play but I'll guarentee you this much GUEST, it won't be me the comes way with a different view point. (You *know* what I mean here.)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:19 PM

I agree toadfrog. The labels left and right have always been useless.

As a rural grassroots activist (democratic wing of the Democratic party), I've worked with members of the Birch Society when the need arose and we shared a common cause. The whole right/left thing is bullshit on the ground when you are dealing with people on the issues that matter to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: toadfrog
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:11 PM

Now, I had always thought of Chris Hitchens as a nasty, disagreeable Left-Wing S.O.B. Reassuring to learn that he is a nasty, disagreeable, Right-Wing S.O.B. instead. I think the moral is, "Right" and "Left" are not the important concepts. There are reasonable people, and then there are the crazies and the S.O.B.'s.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 09:12 PM

So much for PeterT's Scenario 1 & 2. It appears we are already at Peter's "more likely scenario" and we haven't even invaded yet.

This just in from the Washington Post:

Iraqi Exile Groups' Efforts Stalled by Intense Rivalries
Power Struggle Emerges Over Plan for Post-Hussein Era; Key Faction Also Feuding With U.S. on Funds

ROME, Nov. 11 -- Three months after the Bush administration encouraged them to unite and create a common political platform for the future of their country, Iraq's exile factions are locked in an ethnic, religious and political power struggle.

Potentially important players are fighting tenaciously over rival agendas. One of the major factions, the Iraqi National Congress (INC), is also feuding with the State Department over $8 million in funding for propaganda, humanitarian and other programs it is supposed to oversee, State Department officials said. A much-heralded INC "information-gathering" operation inside Iraq has yet to get off the ground, the officials said, because of uncertainty in the Bush administration about the INC's ability to get and relay useful intelligence, as well as competing views within the Washington bureaucracy.

* * * * *

Remainder of the article is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40750-2002Nov11.html

The best laid plans of mice and men...

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:40 PM

Down the road a few years and I can envisage that there'll be a protectorate over Shiite Iraq by Iran. The Sunni sector will be part of an Islamic Republic including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The Kurdish part will be under Turkish occupation, with a Kurdish revolt in progress on both side of the border. US forces will have been withdrawn, after a war with minimal casualties, and an occupation with increasingly large numbers killed.

And so on and so forth.

Starting a war is the easy part. Waging a war against a much weaker opponent is relatively straightforward. But after that it gets more difficult.

But maybe we'll get out without it happening. Miracles can happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST,boab
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:29 PM

hey gnu i think that you ken someone else as i dinna play the bodhran but the guitar.sorry

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:21 PM

That's about what I would expect too, Peter. One more addendum...there will be further terrorist reprisals made against Americans at home and abroad, and the USA will go looking for further small countries to conquer.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 07:02 PM

Hmmmmmm, Peter? 1,000,010 dead and this is your optomistic side. Pleased don't share your pessemistic self.

But I do agree with your 3 scenerios in principle. None look too rosey...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 05:28 PM

It does not take any real brains to figure out what is going to happen. There are realistically only two possibilities if America goes to war. Whether they go depends on the breaks; and with however many others and with Saudi and Turkish support, etc., who knows. Much of the latter is tactical constraint, not overall strategy.

But if they do go to war, there are two scenarios:


One, it takes 2 days, maximum, with the massive technological superiority the Americans have. It is much more extraordinary than in 1991 -- most of the important bits of Iraq are flat, not like Afghanistan. The only place to hide is in the cities. Everyone (except John Keegan)predicted the Gulf War would last a long time, but flat desert is easy to fight in with complete air superiority, satellites, and a fast army on the move. The Americans will build up everything, go in hugely, with everything short of nuclear weapons. This will cause the crumpling of the Iraqi armed forces, and the abandonment of Saddam Hussein. End of War I, beginning of civil war.


Two, enough forces stay loyal to Saddam Hussein that they retreat to the cities and decide to fight it out in the cities. Then it gets miserable and messy, and could take a while, especially because there will be a civil war erupting at the same time.


A more likely scenario to the above is that the increasing pressure on Iraq as the buildup continues will finally cause an internal revolt, and at that point all bets are off as to how the Americans will handle it. Civil war breaks out.

Nowhere do I see in any scenario any possible avoidance of a descent into civil war. The idea that the Americans can stop it in such a huge divided country is crazy. We are not talking eviscerated Germany or unified Japan here.
You read it here first.
Under scenario 1, I predict 10 American dead from self-inflicted helicopter crashes, and about 1 million Iraqi dead when everyone has exhausted themselves in mutual butchery. The 10 American dead will be heroes, about whom schoolchildren will write moving letters; the million Iraqis will just be dead.

Call me a cockeyed optimist.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:55 PM

Very true.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:49 PM

One problem is that once you find yourself in alliance with people on one important thing, it can be all too easy to slide into thinking like them on other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:41 PM

Could be, McGrath. I'd have to read the book myself (which I won't be doing) to judge. As I said, I read reviews that he was, in the end, fairly sympathetic to Kissinger. Hell, I may not even be remembering the reviews correctly anyway, as I can't even remember where I read them now. One, I thought, was in The Nation.

I agree with you about the morphed meaning of libertarian. Nowadays, everytime I see someone say they are libertarians, or libertarian leaning, I ask them what they mean by it, and usually they don't answer. Which is fine, I don't care that much about labels, as they mean such different things to different people at different times.

Positions on the issues is all I care about really. The labels don't tell me much about the person anyway, much less what their thinking is on any given subject.

Hitchens is pretty slippery about that socialist label in that interview towards the end of the article though, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:11 PM

Libertarian is an interesting word. It used to be that when you said you were a libertarian people would assume this mean you were an anarchist, but were avoiding the word becuase the word frightened people off. (And most times they'd be correct in that assumption.)

Now the assumption seems to be that unless you say you are a "left-libertarian" people assume you are some kind of right-wing extremist.

Being rude about Bill Clinton surely doesn't imply anything other than that you believe in some minimal kind of moral standrds - such as that married middle-aged bosses who go screwing silly little office girls half their age and then lie about it shouldn't be able to get away scot-free.

From what I've read of him he's not my favourite columnist, but I'd place him to the left of the present Labour Government here. Not that that is saying too much.

And here are two quotes from The Trial of Henry Kissinger which suggest that he's not exactly over-enthusiastic about the b..ureaucrat:

His own lonely impunity is rank: it smells to heaven. If it is allowed to persist then we shall shamefully vindicate the ancient philosopher Anacharsis, who maintained that laws were like cobwebs: strong enough to detain only the weak, and too weak to hold the strong. In the name of innumerable victims, known and unknown, it is time for justice to take a hand. (p. XI)

Four more years of an unwinnable war and undeclared and murderous war, which was to spread before it burned out, and was to end on the same terms and conditions as had been on the table in the fall of 1968. That was what it took to promote Henry Kissinger. To promote him from being a mediocre and opportunist academic to becoming an international potentate. The signature qualities were there from the inaugural moment: the sycophancy and the duplicity: the power worship and the absence of scruple: the empty trading of old non-friends for new non-friends. And the distinctive effects also were present: the uncounted and expendable corpses: the official and unofficial lying about the cost: the heavy and pompous pseudo-indignation when unwelcome questions were asked. K's global career started as it meant to go on. It debauched the American republic and American democracy, and it levied a hideous toll of casualties on weaker and more vulnerable societies. (p. 15–16)

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: gnu
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:01 PM

And if yer the lass for which I spy, oops, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: gnu
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:59 PM

Hey GUEST, boab... are you the guy from the Bodhran Tips thread ? I just posted a search warrant for (maybe) you... I wanted to know if you have any pictures of the tippers you (may) have described in that thread. Ere yee the lad for which I spy ?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: NicoleC
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:57 PM

I don't want to keep my government at home, I just think that bombs and war planes are poor engineers of lasting social change.

Many of the oppressed peoples of the world would love our interference. Sorry, if you don't have anything we want, you are unlikely to get much help. Sometimes humanity and politics intercept, and it's a beautiful thing when it does.

I wonder if the Iraqi people feel more or less oppressed after 10 years of crippling sanctions, in which mortality rates have soared and a formerly robust and effecive educational system has ground to a halt? Or if the Afghani women feel less oppressed now that there former oppressors, the Northern Alliance (also Islamic fundamentalists), have been restored to power.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST,boab
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:55 PM

evening all, well all this stuff about going to war and stuff is pish if you are that for going in and killing or removing saddam by force.Ggo and see the mother ,father wife son daughter of any one of these guys and lassies and say to them "I am prepared to see your son die so that i feel better than i did yesterday" or if you want you could choose to give up your life instead. there is more than a little chance that soldiers will die as they do in every conflict but this will be for nothing other than oil reserves.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:46 PM

So McGrath, I got curious and did a quick and sleazy web search for Hitchens. At Reason magazine, I came across a post 9/11 interview with him (his falling out at The Nation was over 9/11, as I recall).

In it's introduction to the article, they say that Hitchens:

"...explains why he's no longer a socialist..." and then give this not very revealing biographical information:

"In the roughly two decades since British writer Christopher Hitchens arrived in the U.S., he has emerged as a singularly insightful, provocative, and impossible-to-ignore critic of American politics and culture. His regular columns for the left-wing think magazine The Nation and the glitzy celebrity sheet Vanity Fair stand out in both publications for their clarity of thought and prose. He famously served as one of the models for Peter Fallows, the memorable dissipated Brit journalist in Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities...In books such as The Missionary Position, No One Left to Lie To, and The Trial of Henry Kissinger, he has crafted thoughtful and provocative extended indictments of Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton, and the former secretary of state and Nobel Peace Prize winner; his recent collection, Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere, was reviewed in the July issue of REASON."

It looks to me like he has "indicted" liberals to the near exclusion of anyone else, certainly. His book on Kissinger, in reviews of read of it, is pretty sympathetic.

He answers the "former socialist" question by explaining his libertarian ideals, not his socialist ones. Says he became less of a socialist when socialist critiques of capitalism were no longer relevant, and when Brian Lamb of C-SPAN stopped asking him if he was still a socialist every time he appeared on his program.

All in all, even after reading this somewhat revealing interview, my opinion of him hasn't changed. He may well have felt comfortable being referred to as a socialist, but he comes off very much the conservative, contrary libertarian to me, regardless of the labels.

Go here to read the interview in it's entirety:

http://reason.com/0111/fe.rs.free.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: gnu
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:41 PM

Okayyyy then. I'm outta here. I can't do that kinda math. I'll just leave my post as a comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:31 PM

"Say all you want about the Yanks and the Brits, but I'll bet those of you who are squawking wouldn't trade places with the people being oppressed."

You are absolutely right I wouldn't trade places gnu. That is something of a fallacious argument though, isn't it? I mean, what we are trying to do here is keep our governments at home, and preventing our governments from bombing those oppressed peoples, starving them, and withholding medical aid from them.

We know their despotic governments won't stand up for them. So if not us, then whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: gnu
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:22 PM

The road to freedom from oppression for all is long, hard and fraught with peril. Perhaps some would say it is not the duty of the US and the British Commonwealth to stand up to this bully, but, if not them, who ? And guess where we are going to look for Old Sammy Bin Hidin' and his bunch of terrorists next - amongst those suffering under the system of slavery (SLAVERY !!!) in the Sudan. Recall much was said in the past year about terrorism, money, and the Sudan... call that a leak ? I'd call that a, "See you shortly. Just got a few other things to take care of first."

Say all you want about the Yanks and the Brits, but I'll bet those of you who are squawking wouldn't trade places with the people being oppressed.

God Bless America. Pass the ammunition.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 03:03 PM

Well, thanks for the testimonial, Lt. T, or maybe even Capt. T, maybe you would like to elaborate on the "hands on" experiences in the battlefield that would make your arguemnts "unchallengable". I don't understand the Speilburg comment but I'm sure it alludes to you opinion that my concerns are based on watching movies. If that is the intent, then Sir or Mame, you have guessed or assumed wrongly again.

War isn't rocket science. We've all seen enough of them to know the dangers and the various stategies. I heard not long ago from a General with combat experience that before the war you plan, plan, plan but after the first shot most of the plans go to the rewrite folks. The US doesn't exactly have a model here that presents it with too many clear paths to a quick victory. I'm not saying this. Retired Generals are saying this. Current generals are saying this. There are reports of a lot of squabbling in the Pentagon and again between the Pentagon and Rumsfield.

I can not as a reasonable intellegent person to think that all of these concerns (that have been reported) are just smoke screens, nor should you, unless you are privied to the most classified of secrets involved with the plans, which if you are you should spend more time at the office and less time arguing with a bunch of folk singers...

I'm stickin' to the premise that if Iraq, Iran, or anyone else wants to beat the US they can hole up in cities and make life pretty tough on the US both militarily anhd politically. Gassin' entire cities ain't gonna cut it, Ter.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:12 PM

I could be confusing Hitchens with someone else McGrath, but it is my understanding that Hitchens was on The Nation staff to present "the opposing view" to the liberal editorial board of the magazine. I could be wrong, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 02:08 PM

Christopher Hitchens is actually a former left-wing columnist with The Nation.

Notwithstanding the fact that he has come out in support of Bush over Iraq, his other views would, I suspect, qualify him to be regarded, especially in the US context, as pretty left-wing.

(He's got a brother Peter back here. Now he is a right-wing columnist. At least we'd call him right-wing. Maybe he'd count as a liberal in the States.)

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:53 PM

Slate published an article today titled "Armchair General: The ugly idea that non-soldiers have less right to argue for war".

The author of said article is former right wing columnist for The Nation, Christopher Hitchens (who resigned from The Nation in a hissy fit...it's really too long a story to go into, actually, never mind).

He makes a very cogent argument regarding the automatic privleging of soldiers/generals arguments over civilian arguments.

While he is trying to defend the Bush administration cabinet hawks, a couple of whom aren't really armchair generals at all, I have to agree with him. NicoleC said it best for me in another thread--in a democracy, the debate over the decision to go to war shouldn't be reserved exclusively for soldiers and generals, or government officials. The debate and the decision, in a democratic republic, is done publicly, and decided ultimately by elected officials, NOT appointed generals and cabinet members and soldiers. It is one of the most important aspects of the checks and balance system of our country.

We the people, are the ones who should ultimately decide when to go to war, to withdraw from the battlefield, and end the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 01:28 PM

In time of war, especially before the killing has started, most people do for one reason or another tend to rally to the flag, and not just out of fear of what will happen if they don't. There's no reason to assume that isn't true of people in Iraq.

No doubt the Iraq parliament is a sham in many ways. The MPs will clearly have been given the go-ahead to denounce the terms of the UN resolution, and the implied threat to Iraqi sovereignty, but that does not imply that the views they express are not likely to be representative of public feeling. It seems likely that allowing the MPs to speak and vote in these terms is a way of making an agreement to cooperate with the inspectors more palatable to Iraqis, in the hope of carrying the "wartime solidarity" support over into a situation where the regime will be significantly weaker in other ways.

Interesting to note that the Iraq Parliament has a proportion of women members - an indication of the fact that with all its faults, this is a very different situation from that in such places as the Taliban's Afghanistan or in the Wahabi ruled Saudi Arabia.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:41 PM

Iraqian Parliament? My royal Irish arse. Their role is merely as a stage prop to create the apparency of dialogue. The response reported as coming from them is disingenous and filled with semi-hysterical generalities. Saddam Hussein plays Edgar Bergen.

I find it ridiculous that given our advances in so many fields over the last fifty years we still cannot count on a straight story in the press.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:38 PM

Yes, Teribus. Maybe it's all a bluff and the intention all along really has been to avoid war. And maybe it's a bluff and the intention all along really is to make war.

I don't imagine it'll ever be possible to puzzle that one out, whatever happens. They are still arguing about that kind of thing in relation to the First World War.

And I really do hope you are right in your hopes, and that I am wrong in my suspicions.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 12:22 PM

McGoH:

"It bears all the hallmarks of an official briefing intended for publication."

When was the last time a Commander of an attacking army lay out in such detail what he intended to do? Wolfgang is more on track with this in his response above.

"The interesting thing is that it doesn't even seem to envisage the possibility that Saddam might actually comply with the requirements of the UN resolution. The implication of that is that the US has no intention of accepting anything he does as complying."

If as the article suggests this is the plan for military intervention then non-compliance must already have been established before the plan can be implimented. Where do you draw your conclusion (last sentence above) from? The only person who decides whether or not the Iraqi Authorities are co-operating and complying with UN demands is the head of the UNMOVIC Inspection Teams - Mr. Blix - NOT the US or anybody else.

"This would suggest an intention to move quickly, before the inspectors are in place, since it would be highly embarrassing if the inspection team came out with reports saying that they were satisfied that the Iraq regime was cooperating fully."

Care to take a bet on that Kevin? You seriously believe that having worked so hard to get a new resolution successfully adopted by the UN Security Council, the Americans are going to attack Iraq before the UNMOVIC Teams have arrived?

So far all the Bush Administration has done is:

1. Confronted the UN and forced it to face up to its responsibilities with regard to Iraq.

2. Convinced Saddam Hussein and the ruling Ba'ath Party that a credible threat exists in the event that they decide to play games as they so successfully did before.

3. Succeeded in getting the UNMOVIC Teams invited back into Iraq under terms by which they will be able to carryout their inspections unhindered.

That is all, nothing more.

Bobert:

"Maybe you're a real bonifide occifer, ahh, officer but my guess is that you ain't."

You'd guess wrong, and although you think that I "...seem to have blinders on when you draw up you battle plans", I would only make the comment that in analysing what is being said and what options are open, my experience is a damn sight more relevant and hands on than yours which seems to be governed by embittered resentment and the efforts of Stephen Speilberg.

As for:

"Just this morning the Iragi Parliment has turned down the UN Resolution saying it strips them of their sovereignty. The Parliment better represents those Iragis that you assume will be happy to be invaded. Hmmmmmmmm? Get my point here, T?"

Your apparent blind faith in the power of that great bastion of democratic debate and true representation of the people - the Iraqi Parliament - would be truly touching, if it wasn't so bloody ridiculous. How did the opposition vote Bobert? Hmmmmmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 11:19 AM

Well, using poison gas might be one way to cut down your losses, so long as you can be sure the other side isn't doing it as well, and you are damn careful not to gas your own troops.

But doing it Russian style in Iraq, with massive civilian fatalities, would be a bit embarrassing. After all the emphasis that has been put on the way Saddam killed so many Iraqi civilians with his gas attacks, and how noone who does that kind of thing can be allowed to cling to power, and hold on to stocks of Weapons of Mass Destruction. (Though maybe there was an unspoken addendum to that along the lines "Unless it's us that's doing it".)

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 10:59 AM

Okay, T-eeser, I'll have to conceed ya' one. But just one so don't go gettin' no big head on me here! Maybe you're a real bonifide occifer, ahh, officer but my guess is that you ain't. But, I don't know that fir sure...

What I do know is that you seem to have blinders on when you draw up you battle plans and so I hope, if you do carry a little brass, that its very little.

It's one thing to police one building in a city that you control and quite different when you are trying to police every building in a city that you do not control.

You assume that the Iraqis are just going to roll over, come out of their apartment building waving American flags. Well, assumptions are just that and you know how to spell assume (ass-u-me).

Just this morning the Iragi Parliment has turned down the UN Resolution saying it strips them of their sovereignty. The Parliment better represents those Iragis that you assume will be happy to be invaded. Hmmmmmmmm? Get my point here, T?

So it's back to the street brawl, which favors the home team both militarily and geo-politically...

As fir me, T, I'd rather put more effort into shoring up the Afgan mess which is starting to come unraveled, use resources to hunt down murderers, than to get our resources bogged down in a bigger mess. Ahhh, not mention that pro-human, pro-Earth options have hardly been given an consideration, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 02 - 04:19 AM

Thanks for the link to the article Kevin, very interesting. The plan could have been written by General Giap, it certainly takes most of his principles onboard.

Bobert contends that the "Battle of Baghdad" will be a "re-run" of the last fifteen minutes of the film "Saving Private Ryan". In Moscow I pointed out to Bobert that the Russian Security forces had suffered no casualties.

Finally Bobert, when you state, "That's exactly whi the T-Bird ain't got any brass on his shoulders." - Know that for a fact do you??

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 07:45 PM

Oh, hell, yes!! I have a whole list of stuff I can bitch about Bush about! No problem! Domestic policy 'til hell won't have it. It's just that the war thing is at the top of the list right now.

And it's not Bush, the man. It's anybody who promulgates the policies, domestic and foreign, that he does.

Lotsa stuff. I'll be busy for years. At least until 2004.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:43 PM

"What do you keep talking about how the Titanic is going to hit an iceberg if we don't slow down. I think you'll be disappointed if we don't hit an iceberg."

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:26 PM

Well, thanky, ttr. That's about the nicest thing that you ever said about this old hillbilly (tears well up in the bobert's eyes...). Sniffle, sniff, sniff....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:26 PM

I think the most factual post made in this thread is the one by McGrath. "We are all whistling in the dark here. God knows what's going to happen."

I think Wolfgang's post, supported by Troll, is the most realistic though.

One could deduce that many of you will be disappointed if there is no war. Not to worry. You can still find something else about Bush to bitch about.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 12:06 PM

OK, everybody who thinks waiting for the Republican Guard and the Iraqi people to rise against Sadaam is a good war strategy, raise your hands!

I thought so.

That leaves the scorched earth route into Baghdad. Delusionary war planning only old white guys with no military experience could expect.

Anyone remember that little "prolonged period of political turmoil" in Vietnam from 1963-1965, with nine staged coups? It all started with Diem's crackdown on the Buddhist Church (remember the pictures of a Buddhist monk immolating himself in the streets of Saigon?)

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 11:54 AM

The war. The possibility of war. The repercussions here at home...

Bobert! yer wes jinney slad rool is hittin it rat on the heid... heck if yer pompous mouth doan tell it straight! You are ON IT! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 11:49 AM

Well, I've been saying all along that the Battle of Bagdad could be months of the last 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" and if one considers the possibilties and what is being written and said, this scenerio can happen.

The Post article implies that the stategy is for the Iraqis to rise up and defeat Saddam but then says that the Pentagon is also preparing for the posssibility of prolonged fighting in and around Bagdad" and "messy skirmishes...in...Tukrit"

"The point is that if things don't go as *hoped*, there will be enough forces on hand to deal with it..."......"including around 150,000 US and allied ground troops... to engage in close combat with the Special Republican Guard if Iraqi resistence is stronger than expected."

These are the scenerios that I have been warning those drum beaters who think that a rematch with Iraq will be a repeat of the video-game victory (which it wasn't) the last time around.

Teribus says that all we gotta do is look how skillfully the Russians handled the theater incident in Moscow and copy it. Hmmmmmmmmm? That's exactly whi the T-Bird ain't got any brass on his shoulders.

And all this, when pro-human, pro Earth options have been demonized and ridiculed just to entertain a nation of folks who don't have a clue because they are too busy working on Boss Hog's assembly lines, watching Boss Hog's TV and reading Boss Hog's newspapers.

On this day of rememberance of friends and family members who were killed in Vietnam or came home with their lives ruined by physical or emotional damage, it is fitting to ask the tough questions. And demand better leadership.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 11:23 AM

Because if a plan (or rumor, or anything else) is intentionally leaked, it may not be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 11:09 AM

I guess I'm confused as to why everyone keeps talking about whether the war plans were leaked intentionally or unintentionally. What the hell difference does it make in the larger scheme if it was doveish military leaders, or hawkish civilian cabinet members who leaked it? As Ted Kennedy said not too long before the vote on the Iraq resolution, it isn't exactly Washington's best kept secret that many rank and file and upper echelon types at the Pentagon aren't behind the war the Old White Civilians Men Who Never Saw Combat are ready to wage.

The point is, many Pentagon managers who rfought in the rock and roll war and resented it's unpopularity, will follow orders anyway, and lead the hip hop generation into war, the same way the swing band Pentagon managers did to them.

History Repeats Itself 101. What goes around comes around.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Troll
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 10:54 AM

Sounds to me like some of you are bound and determined to have a war.I agree with Wolfgang.
Kendall, North Korea has already been covered. You don't use the same set list for every gig. The Junior Womens League gets a different show from the one you do for the Volunteer Firemans Smoker.
The same thing applies in international policy.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 09:19 AM

The assumption must be that all leaks like this are intentional. If they weren't they'd surely be treated seriously as treason on the part of the leaker and some kind of espionage on the part of the publication.

Here's a blue clicky for the Washington Post story of November 10th cited above. It bears all the hallmarks of an official briefing intended for publication.

The interesting thing is that it doesn't even seem to envisage the possibility that Saddam might actually comply with the requirements of the UN resolution. The implication of that is that the US has no intention of accepting anything he does as complying.

This would suggest an intention to move quickly, before the inspectors are in place, since it would be highly embarrassing if the inspection team came out with reports saying that they were satisfied that the Iraq regime was cooperating fully.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 09:00 AM

An intentional leak could have two other reasons I have not seen mentioned:

(1) It is the real plan and it is leaked as an additional threat to Hussein in the sense of 'Here's how we would do it and have a good look how easy that looks.' It should convince him the threat is real.

(2) It is not the real plan and it is meant to detract the Irakian forces from what the USA actually plan to do.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: kendall
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 08:57 AM

Bogeyman du Jour. I like that.
Look, Bush has failed at everything he ever tried. His latest failure is the war on terrorism; that didn't work, so, he is diverting our attention from that to this war with Iraq. Why Iraq? Why not North Korea? or some other ememy that we KNOW has Nukes? It's clearly a smoke screen to cover his failures.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 08:43 AM

Amen, McGrath!

And George Bush claims to be a Christain!?!... Whose God can this man possibly be hearing?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 07:48 AM

Alternatively Saddam will agree to the demands, but when he come up with a list of weapons and suchlike the USA will declare that it's not in line with their beliefs on the subject, and therefore it constitutes a "material breach". An invasion, preceded by the use by America of some of its "weapons of mass destruction", will follow.

And Al Qaida will chalk up another success, in the reasonable expectation that in the longer run this will prove disastrous for the USA and especially for its clients in the Middle East

We're whistling in the dark here. God knows what's going to happen. And I doubt if God is too pleased about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Troll
Date: 11 Nov 02 - 07:34 AM

Saddam will accept the Resolution and allow the inspectors in. This will give him breathing room. Then, after a suitable time has past, he will try non-cooperation. If he gets away with it, it's back to business as usual. If he's called on it, he will go back to compliance for a while, waiting for the American people to lose interest and/or a change of administration. Then the same old game.
What he will try to do is keep the Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear supplies that he already has hidden, with the hope that, when everything is over and the sanctions (hopefully) are lifted, he'll still have the weapons and can go on with his plans for the domination of the Middle-East and the destruction of Israel.
There will be no war.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 09:47 PM

I can testify to the THOUSANDS of reserves that have already been called up.

This is MUCH more than mere sabor rattling. Look around your workplace, what individuals under 40 are gone on reserve leave? The forces are positioning.

Let loose the dogs of war!

If the Gulf War was short - this one will be even shorter.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Mr Happy
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 09:42 PM

'poor murdered men never laid down their lives,they were sent to be killed in the war' jon heslop

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 09:36 PM

I agree 100% with what that West Virginy fella said.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The purpose of the so-called "leaks" about invasion plans is to goad Saddam into taking the first punch. No, he doesn't have the capability of striking directly at the U.S., but he can damned sure lob one of those Scud missiles into Israel. The Bush administration is betting that Saddam is enough of a hot-head to think, "They're gonna come at me anyway, so what've I got to lose? I'll just give 'em a good reason to do it." They're also betting that he is naive enough to believe that these "leaks" and the "plans" they talk about are real. You can bet that the only real plan that has been spelled out in detail to this point is what to do if Saddam does attack Israel. And you can also bet that that plan will never be "leaked" to the press.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 09:24 PM

Well, GUEST, it probably will work but sooner or later, be it Iran, North Korea, Lybia, you pick it, some country ain't gonna get bluffed by Junior and his Bullies and the US will loose its next war, unless it is willing to just nuke the entire country of the Boggie-Man-de-Jour.

Imperialism ain't nothin new. Been around a long time. Usually signifies the beginning of the end...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 09:08 PM

We did it to Manuel Noriega - our real Sadam plan - is to bring take the MF'er alive and bring him to a public court of justice for crimes against humanity.

His best option is to grasp the olive and fig leafs that have been offered and quickly disappear into exhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 08:55 PM

Hey, I read this article this morning and you can take this to the bank that there was no leak. This is just more of the continued huff-n-puff crap that been doing down for the last three or four months. But NO LEAK!!!! This *leak* was fully *planned*...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: ballpienhammer
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 08:46 PM

Wow! Saddam, disarm or hide!

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 08:38 PM

The Peace & Justice Support Network of the Mennonite Church declares today "Peace Sunday":

A call to prayer and fasting
The following materials were developed for use by congregations on Peace Sunday, November 10, 2002.

In light of our nation's persistent preparations for war, we invite you to designate Peace Sunday, November 10, 2002, as a time for congregational discernment through prayer and fasting. This prayer and fasting will help each congregation discern God's call to local peacemaking action and broader Mennonite Church USA action. Our times cry out for us to join together as congregations to better hear God.

http://peace.mennolink.org/psunday.html

Subject: BS: Pentagon leaks Bush War Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 02 - 08:34 PM

Today, the Washington Post printed an article detailing the Bush administration's war plans, leaked to the media by unnamed Pentagon sources. Go here for the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33459-2002Nov9.html
War Plan For Iraq Is Ready, Say Officials
Quick Strikes, Huge Force Envisioned by Pentagon

National Council of Churches calls on peace activists to honor veterans tomorrow by slowing the rush to war.

Information on National Council of Churches and Global Exchange's Veteran's Day and other projects can be found here:

http://www.ncccusa.org/iraq/iraqschedule.html

November 11 – VETERAN'S DAY. "Honor Veterans by Opposing War"

November 11: Global Exchange is urging a variety of action for Veteran's Day. Their website is:

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/.

Their website includes helpful resources, e.g. "Ten things you can do to stop the war on Iraq." For more information, contact Kristi Laughlin at 415-255-7291.

Suggestions for events: This will be a day for chaplains to speak out. Global Exchange suggests that religious leaders take leadership and sow seeds for a new movement, "Honor Veterans by Opposing War," to include teach-ins, reflections and civil disobedience.