 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7
|
|
|
Subject: Bush, Iraq, War : Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 08:03 PM Septembeer 16th-19-8th and it's already reached 100 posts. "Will the line reach on to the crack of doom?" - so here is part seven of this thread Search for "Bush, Iraq" threads
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 08:09 PM Do politicians generally go in for giving blank cheques (checks?)to unstable characters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 20 Sep 02 - 09:53 PM Heck, they're perfectly willing as unstable characters to take 'em and take 'em they do, so why not pass a few smaller ones on to other unstable characters. Ahh, which of the unstable characters do you happen to have on your mind, McGrath? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Sep 02 - 10:15 PM Well there's this Congress resolution I beieve they are lining up to railroad through. As I understand it, it says in effect "Do anything at all you feel like doing Mr Bush, kind sir."
Roman Senates used to do things like that at the time Rome turned itself into an Empire. Of course, up till then Imperator just meant the man in charge, it didn't have the associations it came to have later, which are carried over into our word "Emperor". They used it instead of "Rex"("King"), because they were proud of being a Republic.
The same kind of word, in fact, as President... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 20 Sep 02 - 10:40 PM Hardly a single member of our Congress deservesd to be re-elected because hardly any of them are THINKING FOR THEMSELVES! How many are questioning the party line? How many have suddenly changed their voting habits to fit in with the crowd? Heck, I care a lot less about the party makeup of the Congress and a lot more about getting some thoughtful people who aren't afraid to buck the party leadership. Where, indeed, are the Congressmen doing their job? "War" with Iraq = "Bread and Circuses." It served the Roman Emperors well when Rome was decaying and crumbling. Don't let the people think about the real problems, and god forbid you let them think long enough to fix them. You know, hypothetically speaking, if unfettered, full-access weapons inspectors went into Iraq tomorrow, I guess it would take at least a year or so before they could come to any kind of educated conclusion. (Unless they happened upon a smallpox lab the first day or something. Unlikely.) How many people (show of hands) think that Bush is willing to wait that long? I personally think that the many comments we have heard from the administration about their desire for a "regime change" is far more indicative of their future action. Whether Iraq and weapons inspections come together or not, Bush is planning on military action. "Bread and Circuses." (Interesting thing I learned today -- you know those aluminum tubes everyone is fussing about? Iraq has been buying them for decades. They use them for artillery weapons.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 20 Sep 02 - 10:54 PM Well, heck, Nicole... If there was any doubt about the health of the Democratic Party there shouldn't be any now. Yep, dead as a door nail... And furhter proof they are perfectly willing to kill folks to keep their jobs, which none of them deserve to keep. I mean, this is unreal. Junior just throws a temper tantrum and cries and wails until people just get so tired of hearing him they say, "Yeah, just go kill so folks but can ya shugt that guy the heck up!" Great political stategy, but you know what. It wouldn't work without having all these wonderfull WMD behind him. Yeah, he could go out and pound his drum 'til the cows come home and no one would pay him any attention. Yeah, we're entering a new time of "Walking hard and carring one mighty big stick". Yeah,. like thats gonna end terrorism. Ask Sharon... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: DougR Date: 21 Sep 02 - 04:33 PM Nicole, Bobert: It never crossed your mind,I suppose, that they believe they are right, and you are wrong, right? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 21 Sep 02 - 04:48 PM You're right about that one, Dougie. It never *has* crossed my mind. I just heard that the PR campaign for attack is costing the US tax payers $200M. Hey, that ain't chump change. No wonder they have som many folks signing up for the front lines. Hmmmmmm? No one in this line? Hmmmmmmm? Well, it's only money, and the Bushs are real good at spending it on their wars, especially when they know the public is gonna throw em' out and leave the other party to pay for'em. Hey, that's the way it looks from here, Doug. But like I said earlier, the rules have changed and this President just figures he can roll over anyone or anything he wants to, and heck, I perfectly sure he can. Problem is, that for every action there is a counter action. So don't be too darned surprised when the suicide bombers find their way to your shopping mall or crowded theater. This is one darned insane policy. This man is going to get *his* war, come Hell or high water. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 21 Sep 02 - 06:54 PM Now, Doug, didn't I just get through explaining that I thought that they thought that they were doing the right thing? (Even though, of course, they aren't.) Of course, so did the Crusaders, Inquisitors, Conquistadors, terrorists, slave traders... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Sep 02 - 07:21 PM And of course the hijackers of September 11, who just knew they were right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 23 Sep 02 - 07:42 AM NicoleC (above):
"Whether Iraq and weapons inspections come together or not, Bush is planning on military action. " There is a great difference in "planning" and "doing". The inspectors are not yet in place, but the "unconditional" is starting to get qualified by the Iraqi's. Saddam has got to believe that if he does not play along to the letter, the Americans, with or without UN backing, will strike. That requires planning - extensive planning. Saddam's best bet at the moment is to appear to go along, but at the same time make the American government seem unreasonable, thereby damaging the likely-hood of a coalition, involving Iraq's neighbours, being formed. Saddam has no shortage of military advisors and they must know that if the US is forced to go it alone, without the use of Saudi airbases and territory - then chances are that nothing will happen. The precursor to the Iran - Iraq war was the opening of negotiations, by Iran, to resolve the situation in the Shat-Al-Arab. Saddam Hussein's opinion was that this willingness to negotiate was a sign of weakness - all through this dialogue Saddam was preparing for war. "Bread and Circuses" to divert public attention from domestic issues - Bush could save a fortune and divert resources to solve those domestic problems. The contention of many in this forum is that America has no real enemies and is faced with no real threat. Taking that viewpoint onboard, President Bush could therefore reduce the armed forces of America to the status and capability required of a coastal defence force. That would save a great deal of money. As the threat of nuclear attack does not exist - He could argue that American has no need of its existing nuclear arsenal and should unilaterally disarm - more money saved. With regard to foreign policy, President Bush could argue that, having involved itself in attempts to resolve potential flash-points thoroughout the world unsuccessfully for the past twenty years, it was time to admit defeat and let the people of those regions sort their differences out as best they can, in any way they can - another bunch of money saved. Having done all that - you can all rest easy and sleep save a-bed at night - RIGHT?????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 11:26 AM The following sentiments are so pure they could have been written here on the Mudcat. The great struggles of the 20th century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise. In the 21st century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to say what they think, choose who will govern them, worship as they please, educate their children — male and female, own property and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society — and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe. Who wrote it? COndolezza Scwartz, the famous Mudcat fiction-singer? Nope. Probably COndolezza Rice, of the Bush team, or one of her ghost-literati. It is mighty fine rhetoric. Unfortunately, the policy of backing it up with unilateral "preemptive" military attacks is embedded in the same document, which is Bush&Co Natiojnal Security Strategy paper, released Friday. Any dissonance there? Hmmmm.... "No-one wants to be dictated to or governed by force instead of freedom; and in order to ensure this is acheived, we reserve the right to dictate to others at will, supported by force." Whatcha tink? Rogical? Mebbe no? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 11:48 AM I love the way hawks, when cornered, just throw up the same feeble arguments. "Awwww", they say, "we'll just disassemble our defense capabilities. Would that make you commie peace-nics happy?" Ahhhh, unless I missed something here, I don't hear anyone saying we need less defense. Problem is that too many folks confuse defense with offense. And too many folks think that all change must come from either blowing folks up or threatening to blow folks up. Hey, both are terrorist acts if you're on the wrong side of the blower up-er/ blower up-ee equation. W@hat so wrong with a humanistic approach, that invilves the real hard work of including folks we might not agree with in forums that are meant to foster understanding. Nevermind... That's right, if we did that then there's a chance that the US might have to change the way it does things. No, but really, at some point in time with everyone armed to the teeth, things are gonna get out of hand and a lot of folks are going to get blown up. And they won't all be the folks that we disagree with... Yeah, we collectively haven't even scratched the surface on an out-of-the-box push for selling peace. Well, heck, if war was good enough fir my daddy and his daddy then danged if it ain't good fir me. Hmmmmmmmm? Insane. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 11:54 AM They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different! :>) Problem is this "war" if that's what you wish to call it, is different. WHile we're quite accomplished at mutilating bodies, it is a real shame we haven't studied harder the much deeper art of persuading hearts. Too subtle? SSheesh. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 23 Sep 02 - 11:58 AM Don't quibble over semantics, Teribus. When I say Bush is "planning" on war, I don't mean hypothetical military strategies. Bush is going to get a lot of young men killed if he can get away with it because he's hung up on Iraq. Whether the reason is oil or Daddy's war or his everlasting rhetoric on "evil," I don't know, but hung up he is. Iraq is hardly the biggest threat to America right now, but it IS a convenient one. It's utter nonesense to say that America has no enemies, but the conservative lot can't see to get it through their head -- despite the rhetoric -- that those enemies are no longer other countries that we can use conventional tactics against. Our typical tactic is a massive bombing from the air (civilian casualties aren't accidents when they are planned), followed by finding some local warlord to mop up in return for being allowed to get away with the same atrocities as the previous regime, as long as he pretends to like America for a while. "Pre-emptive strikes" (another word for killing whomever you want to without adequate reason) will never make America safer; quite the contrary. They will only perpetuate the cycle of violence and draw more men and women into hating America -- the kind of men and women who have nothing left to lose and would rather die killing Americans than slowly die of some preventable, curable disease or beg for crumbs to feed their children because the bombing has collapsed their economy and they can't find a job. Americans, in general, have this hubris about American motives and American actions. Someone how it's okay when our military does gruesome things, because we're America. We must be right, because we're America. Those fools should give in because we'll crush them otherwise, and it's okay to kill foreigners, because they aren't American. The American ideals that we hold so dear rarely survive past our own borders, and most Americans are too wrapped up in their sense of superiority to even notice. It's because we are so big and powerful that we must think MORE globally, act MORE carefully, and behave ALWAYS as we would wish ourselves to be treated inside our own borders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 12:34 PM Well, put NicoleC. Now between you, Amos and myself, Teribus and Co. will have to go back to the drawing board once again and try to sell Junior and Co's war. But thats what salesmen do. ry one thing after another. Look an Junior. He's a multinationalist one minute then a unilaterist the next. Heck, before 9-11-01 he was an isolationist. He wnats this war so bad that he'll wear almost any "...ist" label to get. Now, here's another thing that bugs me about this thing. Everyone says that Rumsfield is the brains behind this thing but I heard him the other day on C-Span talking in a Congressional hearing and someone asked him about the endgame. "Like, Mr. Secretary, what are the plans for Iraq after the war." and he fell all over himself like he had never given it any thought. Hmmmmmmm? Now that is very scarey. Yeah, here is a guy who has all the huff-n-puff answers but seemed to not have a clue about what do do after you blow the folks up.... See, that says just how Hell bent Junior, Don and Co. are on attacking Iraq. They are like a pit bull and a bone. Their focus is totally on the bone and nothing else. Hmmmmmm? Just some things for Teribus and Co. to think about. I hope we don't get that old "democracy" thing thrown back at us, 'cause that's another dog that won't hunt. Plus its hard to sell something that we don't even practice ourselves. "Here, Hamed and Mohammed, you'll try some of this stuff. It's good fir ya." Hamed and Mohammed to Teribus: "Hey, you try it first." Teribus: (Coughs and looks down at his shoes..) "allready had mine, this morning, thanks. Now, drink up..." Stop Insanity Now Resist Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 23 Sep 02 - 12:42 PM As I suggested in another thread in slightly different words, Rumsfeld comes across as being as "intellectually challenged" as GW (Ghost who Walks?) himself. If he's the smart one, I'm really frightened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 01:35 PM LOL, APC Yeah, it's scarey to think of anyone of the cast of suspicious characters as being the brains of much of anything. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 02:13 PM Fuck it -- throw the buggers out and put Colin Powell in the White House. That'll revolutionize things a bit! :>) 'Bout time we had someone in there with more than one thought to rub together. He has walked the walk and will not throw terms around loosely that he has no comprehension of. Nicole, I greatly admire your eloquence. I would only suggest that the thought patterns you attribute to Americans en masse have many exceptions. FWIW, which is probably not much. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 02:37 PM He's Gonna Go to WarI knew a guy named Dithering George |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:10 PM You write that, Amos? Purdy insightfull, I'd say. I thought you were out on a limb with "fairy" but, heck, when it comes to those rhymmy things, you ain't so ordinary... Jus messin' with ya, buddy. Hey, no one ever said that resisitance is all serious stuff. We might as well have fun while we stop this war. We certainly had a blast last time around, didn't we. Hell no, We won't go Hell no, We won't go Ahhh, pass that thing over here (phfffffttttt...cough...) Hell no, We won't go Hell no. We won't...... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:10 PM Singable as well as relevant, which isn't always the case. Though it tends to be the case when Amos writes'em.
Mind I get very uneasy when people juxtapose "freedom, democracy and free enterprise" as in that quote Amos gave us, and when they talk as if they had equal status, and had been fully worked out.
So here is some thread drift arising from that. (But Amos started it...)
Even "freedom" is a complicated idea - my freedom to play loud music late at night messes with your freedom to get a night's sleep, for example.
As for "democracy", nobody has found a way to translate that into reality on any except the smallest scale, without throwing up all kinds of anomalies. Electoral anomalies, like having elections where the loser wins, and clashes between the rights of the majority to decide what should be done, and the rights of the minority not to be told what to do.
As for "free enterprise" - as widely interpreted and practiced and promulgated this covers some of the most monstrous and destructive types of economic activity and chicanery which has ever been practised on the planet. Enforcing this kind of things on countries where people want to try doing it some other way, or who might wish to put other values above those of private profit, is to risk going clear against any commitment to "democracy."
I'm not putting down the idea of freedom, or the need to aim towards democratic structures. I'm not even dismissing the limited validity of "free enterprise" as a necessary part of a humane and viable economic system.
But the suggestion that all these complicated concepts have been fully and finally worked out and fitted together into a blueprint in Washington, and in the United States, and that it just needs to be applied around the world - I think that is a very dangerous suggestion indeed, and one which threatens to have terrible consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:28 PM But the suggestion that all these complicated concepts have been fully and finally worked out and fitted together into a blueprint in Washington, and in the United States, and that it just needs to be applied around the world - I think that is a very dangerous suggestion indeed, and one which threatens to have terrible consequences. Oh, McGrath!! Watch out, man. That kinda seditious talk will have Blair's Boys knocking at your door to see if you qualify for Viewpoint Correction and Severe Subjective Reality adjustment!! :>) Well said, truly. The degree to which some people want to boil things down to knee-jerk packages is really disgusting. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:28 PM Like I said somewhere or another, McGrath, how are we going to sell something we ain't even got right? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:33 PM Amos, FWIW, I agree. I just wish I met more of them. But the stereotype of the ignorant American is largely true. You aren't going to be educated about world politics by watching the 6 o'clock news -- you have to WANT it. And wanting to be educated about world events is not fashionable, hip or even considered worthwhile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 03:38 PM Tu as bien raison, ma chere! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 02 - 09:02 PM Here ya go, Bobert. This one's fer you, pal A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 24 Sep 02 - 03:43 AM Good answer NicoleC -
To yourself, Amos, Bobert, McGoH and to many others, I would like to remind you of one thing - It has always been my contention that without the full backing of the United Nations, there will not be a war.
You guys on the other hand are totally convinced that there will be.
Answer me one question - How is he going to do it? Please consider in any answer that may be forthcoming, the following factors: 1. The operation must be totally amphibious 2. Air space over Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman and the Yemen are no-go areas. 3. Immediate knock-on effect to countries at the moment solidly behind America - particularly those in the far east. 4. The current world economic situation. I repeat my question - How is he going to do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Sep 02 - 07:05 AM It'd be very foolish of him to do it, and it would have incalculable risks, and the overall effect would be likely to be disastrous.
I wish that was another way of saying I'm sure he won't do it - but it isn't. Governments sometimes do very foolish things.
For example, announcing this new "Bush doctrine" at this time was extraordinarily stupid - it will have had the effect all over the world of getting the backs up of people who might be expected to be sympathetic towards the USA. It was the last way to talk to the world at this time.
Except of course he wasn't talking to the world, he was talking to his supporters at home - and he was sending a clear message of contempt to the rest us around the world. The suggestion that an administration which could do that is really engaged in a cunning game of bluff designed to avoid war, or even is anxious to win support for an internationally backed war against Iraq just doesn't stand up.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 24 Sep 02 - 07:50 AM All well and good Kevin - BUT HOW IS HE GOING TO DO IT? Until the draft of the proposed new resolution is put before the United Nations everything is TALK. With regard to that talk, it must galvanise the UN into taking this seriously and it must leave Saddam Hussein in no doubt that something will happen, while he is trying to cope with that he can be doing little elsewhere. The bulk of the correspondence on this, and other related, threads is a catelogue of, "Woe, woe and three times woe, he's going to war, he's hell bent on war, he's going to do it regardless!!!" HE's GOING TO DO WHAT EXACTLY?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Sep 02 - 09:12 AM Maybe he's not going to war, maybe it's all a bluff. Or maybe they are going to do something very stupid and very reckless. If you could rely on governments not to do things just because they were very stupid and very reckless, we would have relatively few wars. If the USA does go to war unilaterally or virtually unilaterally, what I imagine they'd do would be to use aircraft carriers and bases in neighbouring countries (regardless of what the inhabitants or even the governments wanted) to bomb Iraq from a great height, either selectively or massively, in the expectation of a collapse of civil society and of any significant military opposition. The idea then would be to send in some kind of ground troops.
Maybe Turkey could be brought on side to occupy Northern Iraq, and crush any Kurds who wanted to preserve the limited autonomy they have at present.
And there'd be an effort to have some kind of Iraqi opposition involvement, ideally to provide ground forces, but at any rate to provide a political figleaf.
And with luck there'd be some Iraqi general on the same lines as America's former protegé Saddam to come over, and emerge as the new strong man in Iraq.
Whether it all works is pretty questionable. I think the chances are it would all end up with a radical Islamic regime in power in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and a few of the Gulf States. And a lot more potential for death and glory operations like September 11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 24 Sep 02 - 09:59 AM In case anyone failed to notice the talk of war, all by itself, is forcing up the price of oil. Wonder who benefits from that? Tony Blair has issued a "dossier" describing the fears of Saddam's ability to deploy WMD in some detail, but again attributing the infomration to generalized intell without specifics. Thing that bothers me is the grandstanding; if Bush says they got 'em and Saddam says "Bring in the inspectors" and Bush then says "You're just blowing smoke." Well,w here's that leave us? And Teribus, don't put words in my mouth. You don't see a strategic path absent alliances in the area? Work it out from Jayne's. The capabilities are there. I qagree with you it will be a lot harder, more expensive and less popular without the United Nations front. But not impossible. None of which means there _will_ be a war. Just that Bush is awful willing to act like he's gonna have one. The jerk. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Greg F. Date: 24 Sep 02 - 09:03 PM Kevin, a question: from this side of the pond I find it difficult to understand why Tony Blair is so willing to carry the can for the Bushites. British politicians haven't historically shown much inclination to toady for U.S interests & I'm curious why Blair - in light of the overwhelming opposition of the Britrish people- is so supportive of Bush's insane program. Thanks, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 24 Sep 02 - 10:02 PM Based on his "Dossier" he beieves the intell and sees a serious threat. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 02:59 AM Just what words am I putting in your mouth Amos?
What I said in my previous post was: "...NicoleC - To yourself, Amos, Bobert, McGoH and to many others, I would like to remind you of one thing - It has always been my contention that without the full backing of the United Nations, there will not be a war.
You guys on the other hand are totally convinced that there will be." You mean to tell us that you were only kidding when you posted the "He's Gonna Go to War" song.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 05:19 AM Neither Amos, or, McGoH have come anywhere close to answering two, very basic, questions I have asked, specifically, regarding the contention by the afore-mentioned, and many others contributing to this thread, and other related threads, that President George W Bush and his administration are hell bent on attacking Iraq, even if that means doing so without the full backing of the United Nations. In their attempts to answer, they have completely ignored some very important constraints that undoubtedly would apply if the USA did decide to go it alone. They also completely ignore the reality of the situation the US military would find themselves with respect to the part of the world they would be operating in. I have always stated my personal opinion that action could only be taken against Iraq by a coalition force fully backed by the United Nations - also that that coalition force must include full participation on the part of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other states on the southern coast of the Arabian Gulf. In attempting to answer my question - Kevin (McGoH) actually supports my contention. Amos advises me to consult Jaynes to highlight, his belief, that America possesses the necessary military capability to carry this enterprise through, without alliances being in place in the theatre of operations. I, in turn would advise Amos to take a good look at the map of the area. The United States of America does, undoubtedly, have an extremely impressive and powerful navy. Denied access to land bases and a secure naval facility in the area - that arsenal is rendered to near impotence.
In merely referring me to Jaynes publication, as a means of convincing me, he must assume that I have no experience in naval, or military matters, or what the requirements are for the course of action, he is telling the world and its dog, his President is hell bent on. And before he protests about me putting words in his mouth - I let you judge for yourself:
From Amos's song "He's Gonna go to War" "Now ole George is kinda slimy He talks tough, dumb and old-timey And he never says just what he's shootin' for. But you can bet your bottom dollar He'll pout and rave and holler If we don't let him take his toys, and start another war! He's gonna go to war! He's gonna go to war! Doesn't matter where or when He wants carte blanche for killing men, He wants to go to wa-a-ar!" Great Britain's Prime Minister has qualified that British support is conditional on the agreement of the United Nations on the need for military action. The Arab League has qualified the support of individual states on the condition that the United Nations agrees on the need for armed intervention. My contention still stands. The talk coming out of the American administration at present is to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with what he agreed to do eleven years ago - nothing else!!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Sep 02 - 05:53 AM So Teribus, you and I are agreed that for the USA to go to war without the agreement of the United Nations would be a bad mistake, for practical as well as politcal reasons. But the conclusion you draw from that this means it won't happen, and I think that just doesn't follow. Not infrequently, Ggovernments make bad mistakes, including the government of the USA. We could all list a few.
Essentially there are three alternatives.
One is that Saddam does in fact allow complete weapns inspection, and that any weapons of mass destruction he might have are destroyed. P> The second is that he fails to do this, and that there is a UN backed attack on Iraq.
The third is that the USA sidesteps the whole inspections option as a futile exercise, and goes to war, either with the cooperation of the UK or without.
The rhetoric that has been coming from Washington appears to indicate that the third option is the most likely. Of course it could be bluff, intended as a way of trying to bring about one of the other options. There's no evidence I've heard that suggests that this is true (apart from the suggestion that it is too foolish to be a likely course of action, which I find unconvincing). On the other hand a good bluffer wouldn't show evidence. We'll see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 08:13 AM Kevin, you list three alternatives in your post above.
The first is the most probable outcome.
The second is likely, but Saddam will want to hold onto what power he has in Iraq and to allow this course of action to be taken, he knows for certain that he would lose that power.
The third is superficially credible but in reality impracticable.
My reasoning behind saying that is as follows: 1. Operating entirely unilaterally (i.e. on their own, no allies, no land bases), the operation would have to be totally amphibious. 2. The closest to a secure base would be Diego Garcia, use of which relies on the agreement of the UK. If permission to use Diego Garcia was denied, the alternatives are Pearl Harbour, Guam or Norfolk Virginia. 3. The American Navy has 12 Strike Carriers (2 of which are under construction, a third is currently refuelling (nuclear) on the western seaboard of the US. That leaves a maximum of 9 carriers available for use - the actual number is probably less due to refits and maintenance.
4. The air cover for America's attack on Iraq would be limited (on the proviso that every available carrier was operational and was deployed to the Arabian Gulf) to some 765 aircraft. Tasking of those aircraft would be:
Airbourne Early Warning
Now as there is no submarine threat and no obvious surface naval threat, the USN could leave behind it's anti-submarine aircraft and beef up it's numbers of strike or support aircraft. The practicalities of operating aircraft from aircraft carriers is such that to have two aircraft on task you need to have five aircraft available. So 765 aircraft does not go very far.
5. The greatest threat to US Ships operating in the waters of the Arabian Gulf will come from mines and from unconventional forms of attack (like the attack on the USS Cole). To combat these threats the US Navy has, in total, 14 Mine Counter-measures vessels and 12 Mine Hunters. These are distributed round various bases (2 of each currently in the Arabian Gulf). To get all of them there again of course assumes that they are currently all operational. The threat posed by unconventional attack would require extremely close watch on every single vessel and offshore oil installation in the area - that calls for a very wide dispersion of escort vessels and a Command Vessel to control and co-ordinate their activities.
6. The operation would require Amphibious Assault Ships. The USN has 24 of these. If all are available they could land approximately 40,000 men. The LCT's can land M-48 and M-60 tanks, not the Abrahms main battle tank.
7. To escort the above force the USN has 27 Cruisers, 58 Destroyers and 33 Frigates. These have been designed to fight against Soviet/Warsaw Pact Navies in open waters.
8. The USN has 7 ammunitions supply ships to keep this lot topped up with whatever they are going to throw at Saddam and they would be operating a long way from home. The ships assigned will also have to be provisioned and refuelled. Believe me the logistics involved to accomplish this would be enormous.
9. Operations such as flying (for carriers) and replenishment at sea calls for a great deal of space - open water, lots of it. This space is not available in the confines of the Arabian Gulf. The further away you place your carriers, the more aircraft you need to use for tanker operations, the less you have for combat assignments.
10. The US strike force's available air space would be very restricted. The choice of landing areas for ground troops would be restricted to the Shat-al Arab, or more correctly, half of it, as half is claimed by Iran. The Shia muslims who live there are also known as "The Marsh Arabs" for what I can only assume are good reasons - great place to try and land heavy weapons and armour - you then need to keep them supplied with stores, ammunition and fuel - no docks or onward transport facilities - the helicopters are going to be very over-worked. Could go on but I won't, those above ten points only take the US forces to the point of break-out. In an earlier posting on this thread reference was made to an exercise conducted by the US military, where a US Marine General was given command of the opposition forces. The results of that exercise indicated precisely what I have tried to illustrate above - while the exercise was allowed to run on (as all military exercises are), the analysis would not have ignored the points thrown up by it. I do not know of, or have not heard of, one single military opinion from the US that does not agree with the impracticality of this scenario. Based on that, and my experience of the operations required, I firmly believe that UN involvement is essential - so does George Bush and his advisors.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:18 AM Teribus: I hpope there will be no war but if Congress passes war authority to the White house, coupled with all the huff-n-puff that we're all ready getting from that branch of governemnt, I think the chances are increased rather than decreased. Sure, it makes sense that Bush would not go to war but just huff-n-puff and blow Saddam's house down. He gets a little short term victory out his game of brinkmanship, he keeps some mighty big dogs off the front page and he might even dupe the American people into electing some of his buddies. Hey, as far as I can see, if al;l that works then he's one heck of a politican. Leader? No. But, heck, I'd rather see him blow is wad early enough in his term, just like his father did, so there's time for sorry domestic policies to bite him on his arrogant and rather short-sighted butt in two years... Works for me, just fine... And BTW, brinkmanship is real easy to play when your sitting on the cream of the crop of WMD's. And Amos: thanks for the link. I bookmarked it and will get back to it when time permits. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:24 AM The logistics of war and politics of oil can be very complex. I will just take a few lines and be simple. The drums of war have inspired many simple hard working Americans to think "The muslim world is acting like a bully, and when you appease a bully, they just get worse. ATTACK!"
Does this exclusively apply to muslims?
Muslims have always had a difficult time with the other children on the playground, be it Hindus, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists or the various sects within Islam. Muslims have a hard time professing their faith without denigrating or destroying others.
The same can be said of other bullies with vast tehnological power and insane policies of arming muslims with explosive weapons, bio-war agents and ceaseless bombing campaigns to show them who is boss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:34 AM Very persuasive, well argued, T. Does not having UN consensus to launch operations against Iraq mean that there would be no allies in such an operation? If it came down to it, I believe the Bush apparatus would be able to solicit some support from some nations. The bulk of the mouth of the Persian Gulf belongs to Kuwait, for example, from Al Faw down to Ras al Khafiji, roughly. Israel is just over Jordan, poetically enough, from the whole northwestern border. The whole eastern end of the Med is available for flight deck operations. So I think there would be alternatives. That said, please recognize that my parody of "In the Jailhouse Now" was, indeed, a parody, and not a rallying cry. Surely if Mister Bush can blithely pretend to ready up for war, I can pretend to make fun of him for it. Your reference to the lessons offered at the Global exercise (I think that's the one) by USMC Col acting as CINC of OPFOR is really highly relevant. He made it plain that it will be the unexpected that forces deployed there will have to deal with. But let us hope that the U.S. does not have to abide by W's rhetoric. A The words you put in my mouth were that I was totally convinced there willb e a war in Iraq. Like you, but perhaps for different reasons, I prefer to believe there will not be. But I believe there could be, and it would have some very ugly consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:47 AM Teribus, I take it that yiou think the multiple time that the Bush administration has insisted they will go to war without without the UN is baseless? Going to war without a local base of operations is HARDER, but the SOP of massive air strikes can be undertaken from the aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Action afterword is more difficult. But that doesn't mean we'll have to go that route. Qatar is already waffling about troops. The smaller countries in the area like Bahrain and Qatar can probably be bullied or swayed into to. Let's not forget Kuwait -- not an ideal place to station troops, but it would work very well for landing troops in mostly friendly territory and then have them move into Iraq. When you're the 800 pound gorillla, these are minor obstancles. YES it's impractical without. But Shrub hasn't shown himself concerned with such subleties up to now. And it's been reported several times in the news the Gen. Tommy Franks has already delivered plans for different scenarios or attacks on Iraq. Do you really think the the swollen Pentagon budget never built equipment to handle this kind of assault? Don't take my work for it. My bro (the West Point grad) and I disagree on almost everything political. His response was unequivically "yes, we can." (Of course, he thinks blowing people up is fun, but that's a military education for you.) Haven't we learned ANYTHING? Must we train a new batch of despotic warlords? So much for fostering democratuc rule. Here's scoop from Reuters this morning: "The White House, in a reversal of long-standing policy, is expected to seek approval from Congress soon to give military training to up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. The goal of the training is to create an array of forces to assist the U.S. military in a possible attack on Iraq, the Times said, quoting Bush administration officials and Iraqi opposition sources... In order to pay for the training, the White House plans to notify Congress it wants to use $92 million yet to be allocated from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which allows the Pentagon to provide training, non-lethal goods and services to seven opposition groups, the Times said." That means $92 million dollars of weapons instead of blankets, food, and education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:52 AM The mouth of the Arabian Gulf is the Straits of Hormuz. The northern side is Iranian - with the naval base at Badarabas, the southern side is Omani. Moving south from the along the coast you have Sharjah, Dubai, Doha then Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Your eastern seaboard airbase supposes American aircraft would violate the airspace of sovereign countries. Historically they have never done this - example from recent history - the air attack on Lybia - permission to overfly was denied by France and Spain. Air attacks launched from Fairford in the UK had to fly down the Atlantic coast and into the Med through the Straits of Gibralter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:55 AM military training to up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition Isn't that kind of how the Taliban got started? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Amos Date: 25 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM ..remarks made recently by retiring House Majority Leader, Dick Armey (R-Tex.). Speaking at an event last Friday in Florida, Armey said, "I always see two Jewish communities in America: one of deep intellect and one of shallow, superficial intellect. Conservatives have a deeper intellect and tend to have occupations of the brain in fields like engineering, science and economics," while liberals gravitate to "occupations of the heart." After a couple of Democrats kvetched about the comments, Armey explained that he didn't mean to offend anybody, it's just that "liberals are generally not very bright." C'mon, Bobert -- le's roll! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 02 - 11:20 AM by John Pilger
The making of a United Nations fig leaf, designed to cover an Anglo-American attack on Iraq, has a revealing past. In 1990, a version of George W Bush's mafia diplomacy was conducted by his father, then president. The aim was to "contain" America's former regional favourite, Saddam Hussein, whose invasion of Kuwait ended his usefulness to Washington.
Forgotten facts tell us how George Bush Sr's war plans gained the "legitimacy" of a United Nations resolution, as well as a "coalition" of Arab governments. Like his son's undisguised threats to the General Assembly, Bush challenged the United Nations to "live up to its responsibilities" and condone an all-out assault on Iraq. On 29 October 1990, James Baker, the secretary of state, declared: "After a long period of stagnation, the United Nations is becoming a more effective organisation."
Just as Colin Powell, the present secretary of state, is busily doing today, Baker met the foreign minister of each of the 14 member countries of the UN Security Council and persuaded the majority to vote for an "attack resolution" - 678 - which had no basis in the UN Charter.
It was one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the United Nations, and is about to be repeated. For the first time, the full UN Security Council capitulated to an American-led war party and abandoned its legal responsibility to advance peaceful and diplomatic solutions. On 29 November, the United States got its war resolution. This was made possible by a campaign of bribery, blackmail and threats, of which a repetition is currently under way, especially in countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In 1990, Egypt was the most indebted country in Africa. Baker bribed President Mubarak with $14bn in "debt forgiveness" and all opposition to the attack on Iraq faded away. Syria's bribe was different; Washington gave President Hafez al-Assad the green light to wipe out all opposition to Syria's rule in Lebanon. To help him achieve this, a billion dollars' worth of arms was made available through a variety of back doors, mostly Gulf states.
Iran was bribed with an American promise to drop its opposition to a series of World Bank loans. The bank approved the first loan of $250m on the day before the ground attack on Iraq. Bribing the Soviet Union was especially urgent, as Moscow was close to pulling off a deal that would allow Saddam to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully. However, with its wrecked economy, the Soviet Union was easy prey for a bribe. President Bush sent the Saudi foreign minister to Moscow to offer a billion-dollar bribe before the Russian winter set in. He succeeded. Once Gorbachev had agreed to the war resolution, another $3bn materialised from other Gulf states.
The votes of the non-permanent members of the Security Council were crucial. Zaire was offered undisclosed "debt forgiveness" and military equipment in return for silencing the Security Council when the attack was under way. Occupying the rotating presidency of the council, Zaire refused requests from Cuba, Yemen and India to convene an emergency meeting of the council, even though it had no authority to refuse them under the UN Charter.
Only Cuba and Yemen held out. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: "That was the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world's poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia. The ferocity of the American-led attack far exceeded the mandate of Security Council Resolution 678, which did not allow for the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and economy. When the United States sought another resolution to blockade Iraq, two new members of the Security Council were duly coerced. Ecuador was warned by the US ambassador in Quito about the "devastating economic consequences" of a No vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with new IMF conditions for its debt.
Little has changed, and humanity deserves better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Sep 02 - 12:09 PM As I said, Teribus, we are agreed that unilateral attack by the USA wold be very stupid. I very much hope that there is someone saying those things in the White House, and being listened to. Maybe Colin Powell. Maybe Tony Blair.
But stupid thinks happen. The Bay of Pigs was pretty stupid...Vietnam...Saddam's occupation of Kuwait...the Falkland/Malvinas affair... and so on and so forth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Teribus Date: 26 Sep 02 - 04:52 AM Sorry for the delay in getting back to you NicoleC - but better late than never:
Point by point - my reply to your post above: "Teribus, I take it that yiou think the multiple time that the Bush administration has insisted they will go to war without without the UN is baseless?" For the past eleven years Saddam Hussein, has, in varying degrees, thumbed his nose at the UN in the firm belief that they would do nothing - that is a fact. The rhetoric coming out of Washington, combined with the current evaluation of what could happen if Iraq's weapons programmes are allowed to advance unchecked, has caused the UN to re-evaluate its position with regard to the regime in Iraq and its inaction and flagrant contravention of existing UN resolutions. As a result, Saddam Hussein has agreed to the return of UN weapons inspectors - in his view, that's no problem, we've had them here before and we successfully got rid of them, we'll do the same again. The continuing rhetoric coming out of Washington is maintaining pressure on the UN Security Council to act, while serving to impress upon Saddam Hussein that this time, he will not be given the opportunity to interfere with intrusive weapons inspections in the slightest degree. "Going to war without a local base of operations is HARDER, but the SOP of massive air strikes can be undertaken from the aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Action afterword is more difficult."
I tried to illustrate in my post above how limited your massive air strikes would be based from aircraft carriers. You also seem to believe the myth that countries can be bombed into submission - that has never happened in the history of the use of air power. Please don't quote Afghanistan as an example. What toppled the Taliban from power in Afghanistan was the Northern Alliance forces ON THE GROUND - American air power broke the stalemate and gave those forces freedom of movement by denying it to the Taliban forces - Air power alone would have accomplished nothing. The same applies to Iraq now.
"But that doesn't mean we'll have to go that route. Qatar is already waffling about troops. The smaller countries in the area like Bahrain and Qatar can probably be bullied or swayed into to. Let's not forget Kuwait -- not an ideal place to station troops, but it would work very well for landing troops in mostly friendly territory and then have them move into Iraq. When you're the 800 pound gorillla, these are minor obstancles."
Qatar's Foreign Minister is on record stating that action will only be countenanced with the backing of the United Nations. As to other countries being bullied or swayed, you forget the circumstances that brought about the formation of the coalition in the Gulf War - Iraq, a muslim country, attacked Kuwait another muslim country and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia, leader of the muslim world. Iraq's actions were indefencible within the tenets of Islam - that is what forged the coalition then. The same arguement cannot be used now - in fact any muslim country assisting America in an attack not sanctioned by the United Nations, which of course includes the countries comprising the Arab League, will be viewed in the muslim world as the aggressor. As to the suitability of Kuwait as a forward base, or staging post? - Its too near and too small. You can deter an attack by stationing troops there (As the British did in the 1950's) but it is less than ideal for launching an attack from.
"YES it's impractical without. But Shrub hasn't shown himself concerned with such subleties up to now."
At the moment its all talk - to achieve his aims George W doesn't have to concern himself with the subtleties. The game is going his way within the frame work of internationally accepted protocols.
"And it's been reported several times in the news the Gen. Tommy Franks has already delivered plans for different scenarios or attacks on Iraq."
Essential paper exercise to maintain the credibility of the threat. This also has to be done should the UN agree to military intervention as the US would provide the major part of any force.
"Do you really think the the swollen Pentagon budget never built equipment to handle this kind of assault?"
Actually Nicole, it's not what I think its what I know. The swollen Pentagon budget you refer to, specifically built equipment to handle a global conflict - the threat then being Soviet Russia - not brush-fire type wars and not wars without allies. The track record of the American armed forces on the few occasions where they have had to respond to such actions has not been good. If you do not believe me, go to the web-sites for the US Navy, or to Jayne's Fighting Ships. Look at the armamnets of the destroyers and frigates, look specifically at what their armament is in terms of short range, rapid fire, small calibre weapons - you will find they are greatly lacking - the Phalanx system is of little use - that was designed for defense against anti-ship missiles - rate of fire is too high, degree of depression insufficient.
"Don't take my work for it. My bro (the West Point grad) and I disagree on almost everything political. His response was unequivically "yes, we can." (Of course, he thinks blowing people up is fun, but that's a military education for you.)"
The "Yes, we can." answer is based purely on paper not on reality - there again your brother is West Point (Army). Thankfully for western democracy both Hitler and Stalin thought in terms of army. This mind-set completely blinded both to the importance of naval power and strategic air power. If indeed your brother, due to his military education, thinks that blowing people up is fun, he is definitely, in my experience, the exception to the rule - or the selection process for West Point is greatly flawed. Without exception, I have never encountered any military man who was eager to instigate military action - for what I assume are obvious and logical reasons. "Haven't we learned ANYTHING? Must we train a new batch of despotic warlords? So much for fostering democratuc rule. Here's scoop from Reuters this morning: "The White House, in a reversal of long-standing policy, is expected to seek approval from Congress soon to give military training to up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday. The goal of the training is to create an array of forces to assist the U.S. military in a possible attack on Iraq, the Times said, quoting Bush administration officials and Iraqi opposition sources... In order to pay for the training, the White House plans to notify Congress it wants to use $92 million yet to be allocated from the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which allows the Pentagon to provide training, non-lethal goods and services to seven opposition groups, the Times said." That means $92 million dollars of weapons instead of blankets, food, and education."
Utterly ludicrous and totally incredible and her's why:
1. The time frame is completely wrong. This would take years to put into effect and time is the thing the world does not have.
2. There is the matter of credibility: Hypothetically, Nicole, you are an Iraq Kurd, or Shia Muslim, you are in your mid-thirties. Through uncensored, clandestined, radio you hear of this American programme - in the light of your own personal experience, post "Desert Storm", are you going to believe it? are you prepared to trust it? - I would venture to suggest - NOT ON YOUR LIFE, NOT AS LONG AS YOUR ARSE POINTS DOWNWARDS. With respect to brush-fire wars and limited action conflicts, the United States of America has never understood Templeton's philosophy of "Hearts and Minds", and because it is not understood it can never be effectively implimented. That is why you tend to leave situations having achieved short term objectives without achieving long term aims. If there is to be any regime change in Iraq - that will come through the Ba'Aath Party - to date no other credible candidates have emerged. There has been some mention of America supplying Saddam Hussein in the past with chemical and biological weapons - that is not correct - those weapons were originally supplied by Russia in the Soviet era - Iraq then developed its own capacity to manufacture the contents. FACT.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: NicoleC Date: 26 Sep 02 - 01:50 PM The news reports are saying that the opposition groups inside Iraq are the ones asking for the military training funds, and have been for some time. The $92 million would come out of funds already set aside for said opposition groups, only the US has balked at actually military training so far. Since we are already supporting those groups and have been for a long time, our credibility with them isn't at stake. If they were thinking about suddenly starting up a new program, I'd agree that any takers would likely be the very bottom of the barrel. I agree that trying to train troops and put them into action requires years of training if it's going to be effective. My point was that training rebels in unstable countries has come back to bite us in the arse in the past and you'd THINK that we'd have figured out that arming unstable countries is pretty stupid. As for my bro, he was a Blackhawk pilot. Army is not all infantry. He was always chomping at the bit to got into action and always got stuck behind a desk instead. His wife, who does have combat experience, is decidedly less enthusiastic about war :) I agree, most military folks aren't nearly as enthusiastic about war as those who've never had to face it head on. I used to date an 82nd Airborne guy; he also thought war was cool, but he'd never faced hostile fire either. I think we've beat this one to death. I think the Bush administration is willing to act unilaterally, and I hope they don't get away with it, but it is logistically possible. Expensive and dangerous, but possible. You think that the Bush administration WON'T act unilaterally, but you still don't want them to get away with it, and you don't think they could pull it off anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 From: Bobert Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:13 PM This tread, unoftunately, is turning more into a tactical thread so I'm spending more time over in the peace tent but I would just throw a few thing in for thought: 1. Desperate people do desperate things. 2. Civilians make great shields. 3. In a street fight, the warrior with the home field advantage, is tough to beat. 4. Vietnam Okay, those are for tactical considerations. As fir the geo-political, I'm gonna be in D.C. on Sunday marching against Bush's plans, no matter what protocol check list he's got on his desk, before he calls for the insanity to begin. There are options and we have time. Bobert |