Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3 (Bush, Iraq)

Amos 05 Sep 02 - 07:48 PM
NicoleC 05 Sep 02 - 08:07 PM
GUEST,Just Amy 05 Sep 02 - 08:34 PM
Bobert 05 Sep 02 - 08:59 PM
GUEST,petr 05 Sep 02 - 10:16 PM
Bobert 05 Sep 02 - 10:30 PM
Amos 05 Sep 02 - 10:51 PM
NicoleC 05 Sep 02 - 10:54 PM
GUEST,Richard H 05 Sep 02 - 11:19 PM
NicoleC 05 Sep 02 - 11:32 PM
katlaughing 05 Sep 02 - 11:42 PM
Amos 05 Sep 02 - 11:56 PM
DougR 05 Sep 02 - 11:57 PM
NicoleC 06 Sep 02 - 12:55 AM
GUEST,Bagpuss 06 Sep 02 - 05:36 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 06 Sep 02 - 05:58 AM
Peter K (Fionn) 06 Sep 02 - 06:06 AM
SINSULL 06 Sep 02 - 06:37 AM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Sep 02 - 07:05 AM
kendall 06 Sep 02 - 07:32 AM
Troll 06 Sep 02 - 11:05 AM
NicoleC 06 Sep 02 - 12:19 PM
DougR 06 Sep 02 - 01:03 PM
Amos 06 Sep 02 - 01:30 PM
DougR 06 Sep 02 - 03:09 PM
NicoleC 06 Sep 02 - 03:38 PM
Donuel 06 Sep 02 - 03:58 PM
Donuel 06 Sep 02 - 04:07 PM
euclid 06 Sep 02 - 04:22 PM
DougR 06 Sep 02 - 04:28 PM
Amos 06 Sep 02 - 04:33 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Sep 02 - 04:35 PM
Donuel 06 Sep 02 - 04:36 PM
Amos 06 Sep 02 - 05:00 PM
NicoleC 06 Sep 02 - 06:27 PM
GUEST,Clint Keller 06 Sep 02 - 06:32 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Sep 02 - 06:41 PM
Bobert 06 Sep 02 - 07:09 PM
Peter K (Fionn) 06 Sep 02 - 09:06 PM
Troll 06 Sep 02 - 09:52 PM
Amos 06 Sep 02 - 09:54 PM
Bobert 06 Sep 02 - 10:18 PM
NicoleC 06 Sep 02 - 11:22 PM
DougR 07 Sep 02 - 01:09 AM
Bobert 07 Sep 02 - 10:46 AM
Amos 07 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Sep 02 - 11:23 AM
kendall 07 Sep 02 - 12:12 PM
DougR 07 Sep 02 - 12:28 PM
Peg 07 Sep 02 - 12:41 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 07:48 PM

This is part 3 of this discussion.

Part 2 can be found over at this place..

In our lasy episode Bobert and DougR were eyeing eachother coldly, hands hovering over their holsters, while Kendal stood nearby blowing the smoke away from the barrel of his Winchester rifle, and various townspeople looked on nervously....

Search for "Bush, Iraq" threads


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:07 PM

Doug,

Just a bit of clarification of your views for me, okay? I'm confused.

Do you think that:
a) Iraq is worhty of attack because George says so, and he's infallible
b) Ira a) Iraq is worthy of attack because they are inherently "evil"
b) Iraq is worthy of attack to soley protect our oil supply
c) Iraq is worthy of attack because they might have WMD's
d) Iraq is worthy of attack IF it's proven that they DO have WMDs
e) Iraq is worthy of attack IF it can be shown that Iraq/Saddam presents an imminent danger to the US and/or our allies
f) Iraq os worthy of attack IF it can be shown that Iraq/Saddam presents an imminent danger to the US only


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Just Amy
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:34 PM

My Friend Greg has just been called up (National Guard)even though he is on the bottom of the list of people who should be called up (short time left, age, not an officer). What is the President doing? I'm busy sending out emails to my Senators. This is very scary to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:59 PM

Danged, Dougie. I like this one that Nicole has come up with. When I was in college and didn't know the answer to a miltiple-guess test, I'd always pick C. But that's all the halp you're gonna get from me. Hey, quit lookin' at mu paper... Danged

Now there is another thread which I am not going to post on that I started that was supposed to be more about the shifting geopolitical map where I believe you have been mixin' it up over Clinton and Though I'm not much of a Clinton fan myself I would like to point out just one observation.

Clinton worked tirelessly on trying to bring some peace and stability to the Middle East. I don't think that can be refuted. In doing so, America's message was, "We care". Now did he solve the problems in the Middle East. No. But no one can say he didn't do his best.

Then along comes, ahhhhh, well, you know... Mr Bush. Well, Bush thinks he got elected to do the opposite of everything Clinton had done. Wrong. First of all he didn't get elected but history will prove that out so there's no use in qyibblung over that especially since you are not willing to examine the vast evidence.

Bit the second thing that Bush and Co. did was turn their back on the Middle East and in doing so the message changed from "We care" to "We don't care". And the longer we *didn't care* the worse things got. Our noncaring, isolationist foriegn policy caught up with the US big time on 9/11.

Hey, ol' Bobbert is here to say that what happened on 9/11 was a pretty evil thing but we can not be held blameless. When a country holds up a big "We Don't Care About You' sign to folks who allready have serios issues we shouldn't be too darned surprised when they bite.

So, yeah, I'll agree with you that Clinton had his flaws but they were personal in nature but when it came to paying attention to the rest of the world, he was attentive. Your guy, on the other hand was too busy with his energy policy, written by 43 of his closest oil frineds. And isn't it curious that here he finds himself locked in a stalmate with another oilman in Iraq.

Hmmmmmmm. Food for thought...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:16 PM

In 1981 when the Israelis bombed the Baghdad Nuclear Reactor, the world condemned the action, the US stopped some arms shipments to Israel for a while (although most of the west tacitly approved). By the time the GUlf war came around they were certainly glad it had been done. (of course why did an oil rich nation need a nuclear reactor)

(if it was 1981 and we could discuss, whether the Israelis should go in and take out the reactor, I wonder what the general consensus would be) (of course it is totally different than attacking a country...)

I dont have an answer as to whether or not the US should attack or depose Saddam, the opportunity was there in 91 but supposedly they didnt want to leave a power vacuum, (and have to deal with setting up or partitioning a state)

Then again, at the end of ww2 the US occupied Japan and helped establish a democratic and stable nation.

(maybe they should use the E-bomb (if it exists) supposedly being developed by the Brits which sends out a massive electromagnetic pulse and knocks out electrical systems etc. without any human casualties)

Last October there were discussions on whether or not the US should go into Afghanistan. A lot of people strongly opposed it, because its a quagmire or the history (no ones ever conquered Afghanistan etc), although I predicted (correctly) that the Taliban would collapse within 2 months. WHile there were many innocent lives lost, I think most Afghanis are better off, and there is now an attempt to establish and stabilize a govt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:30 PM

Afganistan is far from a stable country with warloards still plotting against each other and nothern alliance folks stull oppressing the Pustan's in the south. Unless the US spends a ton of money there and stays for the next 30 years, with the possibility of UN peace keeping forces to keep the internal warring factions from each others thoats, then this country will remain on the verge of reversing course and returning to the ways of old. There are a few generations of wounds that need healing.

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:51 PM

Japan was homogenous with very little variance in "race". Afghanistan is a loosely organized concatenation of intensely tribal groups. Big diff.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:54 PM

Fortunately, I think in the case of Afghanistan we've learned our lesson. We bailed out of the country when we didn't need it anymore, left it in shambles, and it came back to bite us. I think there's a pretty broad base of support for a mini-Marshall Plan, to help prevent the same kind of destabalization. For now. If we don't stick it out, lord help us. Since we are also finally getting what we've wanted from Afghanistan for the past 20 years, namely a big fat gas pipeline (don't get me started!), I think the US will stick around at least as long as the gas holds out.

For the moment, though, the average Afghani is not really any better off and many are much, much worse -- being homeless, widowed or orphaned comes to mind. And the situation seems unlikely to improve at all in terms of women's and children's welfare -- the Northern Alliance is as anti-everything-not-male as the Taliban was.

The US doesn't care if the standing government is brutal and repressive, only that it's stable and friendly to US business interests.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:19 PM

Interesting articles on news.bbc.co.uk today. Afghans disillusioned and more or less giving up on ever having a stable country. Intense rivalry between warlords now armed to the teeth by USA. President nearly assassinated, saved by his US bodyguards.

Bush and Blair meeting this weekend to decide who will take over from Saddam. Doesn't this look kinda weird - the gov't of a country being chosen by two foreign leaders?

Intruder spotted in USA's biggest storage facility for nerve gas and chemical weapons (Ohio? Utah?). Surely this isn't being kept for use on humans?

Safe bet: if, or rather when, the Americans invade Iraq, they will find weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not Saddam ever had them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:32 PM

"Safe bet: if, or rather when, the Americans invade Iraq, they will find weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not Saddam ever had them."

LOL Richard! I won't bet against that!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:42 PM

Bush needs to be removed from office. He's not even going to wait. Blair needs to have his head examined. This is from the news-telegraph.com/uk:

100 jets join attack on Iraq
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 06/09/2002)


About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years.

The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of special forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war. It was launched two days before a war summit between President George W Bush and Tony Blair in America.

The Prime Minister promised that Britain would be alongside the Americans "when the shooting starts".

The raid seemed designed to destroy air defences to allow easy access for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war within the next few months.

Although only 12 aircraft dropped precision-guided bombs on to the H3 airfield, 240 miles west of Baghdad and close to Jordan, many support aircraft took part.

The strikes were carried out by nine American F15 Strike Eagles and three RAF Tornado GR4 ground attack aircraft flying from Kuwait.

At least seven types of aircraft took part. Fighter cover was provided by US F-16 Fighting Falcons and RAF Tornado F3s from Saudi Arabia. RAF VC10 tanker aircraft flying from Bahrain were among the support aircraft.

These also included EA6b Prowlers, which send out signals to confuse enemy radar, and E3a Awacs aircraft that co-ordinate operations and carry out reconnaissance of any response.

RAF Tornados also took part in the reconnaissance. American central command refused to go into detail about the number of aircraft involved in the raid.

It said: "Coalition strikes in the no-fly zones are executed as a self-defence measure in response to Iraqi hostile threats and acts against coalition forces and their aircraft."

The Pentagon said that the raid was launched in "response to recent Iraqi hostile acts against coalition aircraft monitoring the southern no-fly zone".

Iraq had made 130 attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft this year.

The Ministry of Defence in London refused to confirm that RAF aircraft had taken part, but defence sources said that Tornado ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft played a key role. The attack on what the American central command described as an "air defence command and control facility" was the first time that a target in western Iraq had been attacked during the patrols of the southern no-fly zone.

Until yesterday, all strikes had been against air defence sites in the south, around Basra, Amara, Nassairya and Baghdad.

Central command said it was still assessing the damage caused by the attack. If the air defence installation was not destroyed, a second raid is expected.

As well as blinding Iraqi radar to any special forces helicopters, the loss of the H3 installation would allow allied aircraft mounting major raids on Iraq a trouble-free route into the country.

In a further sign that America was preparing for war, a Pentagon official confirmed that heavy armour, ammunition and other equipment had been moved to Kuwait from huge stores in Qatar.

Thomas White, the army secretary, said: "We have done a lot with pre-positioned stocks in the Gulf, making sure that they are in the right spot to support whatever the president wants to do."

Any war on Iraq is likely to begin with a gradual intensification of attacks on air defences. But yesterday's raid appears more likely to be related to the special forces Scud hunts.

It was the SAS which specialised in the attempts to hunt down the Scuds during the Gulf war. Although the raids were largely unsuccessful, they spawned a series of rival books by former members of the regiment.

Mr Bush, speaking in Louisville, Kentucky, said that, besides having talks with Mr Blair, he would be meeting the leaders of France, Russia, China and Canada over the next few days. He would tell them that "history has called us into action" to oust Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq.

He said he was looking forward to the talks, but suggested that the US could do the job on its own if need be.

"I am a patient man," he said. "I've got tools; we've got tools at our disposal. We cannot let the world's worst leaders blackmail, threaten, hold freedom-loving nations hostage with the world's worst weapons."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:56 PM

"Freedom-loving" is not a word I would have chosen to describe George Bush, Jr.

They're softening the ground. This is the hardest bluff in international relations since the uSSR backed down on the Cuban missiles; or, we're about to see the first U.S.-initiated war since Teddy Roosevelt. Grim day all around, guys and gals.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:57 PM

Nicole: Happy to oblige.

a) Nope b) Ira) Nope c) Nope d) Yep e) Yep f) Nope. Not likely anyway.

I hope this helps.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 12:55 AM

I agree with e) Doug. Self defense is a good thing. I just don't think the proof is there, becaus eI don't think Saddam is that stupid. He likes being in power, and attacking us would guarentee his destruction. If there is proof, I think the folks who are paying for the war and dying for it need to see it -- namely, the citizens and soldiers of the US and allies.

I see a Joe Clone cleaned up my other two posts, unfortunately the 2nd one was formatted correctly and had the relevant follow-up bits in case you answered d) or above...

If it's just about countries with WMD, why Iraq, and not North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, numerous other gulf states, China, Turkey, India, Pakistan, most of Central America, Russia, and a large portion of the former Soviet Republics?

Deterence works with North Korea, who not only has bio and chem weapons, but nuclear ones and the ability to deliver them to the US. So why Iraq?

If Iraq, why now, when the situation in Iraq has substantially changed in years? Why NOW when we are already fighting in Afghanistan (and STILL no military exit strategy) and fighting a nebulous and expensive "war on terrorism" and need the support of the middle-eastern countries to be effective at all -- support that would vanish if we defy their wishes and attack.

(I think I said it better the first time.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 05:36 AM

And maybe we would lose....

Can't have the fingers crossed get out in a real war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,787018,00.html

Wake-up call

If the US and Iraq do go to war, there can only be one winner, can't there? Maybe not. This summer, in a huge rehearsal of just such a conflict - and with retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper playing Saddam - the US lost. Julian Borger asks the former marine how he did it

Friday September 6, 2002 The Guardian

At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator. What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.

In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.

What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory".

If the Pentagon thought it could keep its mishap quiet, it underestimated Van Riper. A classic marine - straight-talking and fearless, with a purple heart from Vietnam to prove it - his retirement means he no longer has to put up with the bureaucratic niceties of the defence department. So he blew the whistle.

His driving concern, he tells the Guardian, is that when the real fighting starts, American troops will be sent into battle with a set of half-baked tactics that have not been put to the test.

"Nothing was learned from this," he says. "A culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future." The exercise, he says, was rigged almost from the outset.

Millennium Challenge was the biggest war game of all time. It had been planned for two years and involved integrated operations by the army, navy, air force and marines. The exercises were part real, with 13,000 troops spread across the United States, supported by actual planes and warships; and part virtual, generated by sophisticated computer models. It was the same technique used in Hollywood blockbusters such as Gladiator. The soldiers in the foreground were real, the legions behind entirely digital.

The game was theoretically set in 2007 and pitted Blue forces (the US) against a country called Red. Red was a militarily powerful Middle Eastern nation on the Persian Gulf that was home to a crazed but cunning megalomaniac (Van Riper). Arguably, when the exercises were first planned back in 2000, Red could have been Iran. But by July this year, when the game kicked off, it is unlikely that anyone involved had any doubts as to which country beginning with "I" Blue was up against.

"The game was described as free play. In other words, there were two sides trying to win," Van Riper says.

Even when playing an evil dictator, the marine veteran clearly takes winning very seriously. He reckoned Blue would try to launch a surprise strike, in line with the administration's new pre-emptive doctrine, "so I decided I would attack first."

Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.

It was at this point that the generals and admirals monitoring the war game called time out.

"A phrase I heard over and over was: 'That would never have happened,'" Van Riper recalls. "And I said: nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Centre... but nobody seemed interested."

In the end, it was ruled that the Blue forces had had the $250m equivalent of their fingers crossed and were not really dead, while the ships were similarly raised from watery graves.

Van Riper was pretty fed up by this point, but things were about to get worse. The "control group", the officers refereeing the exercise, informed him that US electronic warfare planes had zapped his expensive microwave communications systems.

"You're going to have to use cellphones and satellite phones now, they told me. I said no, no, no - we're going to use motorcycle messengers and make announcements from the mosques," he says. "But they refused to accept that we'd do anything they wouldn't do in the west."

Then Van Riper was told to turn his air defences off at certain times and places where Blue forces were about to stage an attack, and to move his forces away from beaches where the marines were scheduled to land. "The whole thing was being scripted," he says.

Within his ever narrowing constraints, Van Riper continued to make a nuisance of himself, harrying Blue forces with an arsenal of unorthodox tactics, until one day, on July 29, he thinks, he found his orders to his subordinate officers were not being listened to any more. They were being countermanded by the control group. So Van Riper quit. "I stayed on to give advice, but I stopped giving orders. There was no real point any more," he says.

Van Riper's account of Millennium Challenge is not disputed by the Pentagon. It does not deny "refloating" the Blue navy, for example. But that, it argues, is the whole point of a war game.

Vice-Admiral Cutler Dawson, the commander of the ill-fated fleet, and commander, in real life, of the US 2nd Fleet, says: "When you push the envelope, some things work, some things don't. That's how you learn from the experiment."

The whole issue rapidly became a cause celebre at the Pentagon press briefing, where the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, got the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff, General Peter Pace, to explain why the mighty US forces had needed two lives in order to win.

"You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" General Pace asked.

Van Riper agrees with Pace in principle, but says the argument is beside the point.

"Scripting is not a problem because you're trying to learn something," he says. "The difference with this one was that it was advertised up front as free play in order to validate the concepts they were trying to test, to see if they were robust enough to put into doctrine."

It is these "concepts" that are at the core of a serious debate that underlies what would otherwise be a silly row about who was playing fair and who wasn't. The US armed forces are in the throes of what used to be called a "Revolution in Military Affairs", and is now usually referred to simply as "transformation". The general idea is to make the US military more flexible, more mobile and more imaginative. It was this transformation that Rumsfeld was obsessed with during his first nine months in office, until September 11 created other priorities.

The advocates of transformation argue that it requires a whole new mindset, from the generals down to the ordinary infantryman. So military planners, instead of drawing up new tactics, formulate more amorphous "concepts" intended to change fundamentally the American soldier's view of the battlefield.

The principal concept on trial in Millennium Challenge was called "rapid, decisive operation" (RDO), and as far as Van Riper and many veteran officers are concerned, it is gobbledegook. "As if anyone would want slow, indecisive operations! These are just slogans," he snorts.

The question of transformation and the usefulness of concepts such as RDO are the subject of an intense battle within the Pentagon, in which the uniformed old guard are frequently at odds with radical civilian strategists of the kind Rumsfeld brought into the Pentagon.

John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington, believes the splits over transformation and the whole Van Riper affair reflect fundamental differences of opinion on how to pursue the war on Iraq.

"One way is to march straight to Baghdad, blowing up everything in your way and then by shock and awe you cause the regime to collapse," Pike says. "That is what Rumsfeld is complaining about when he talks about unimaginative plodding. The alternative is to bypass the Iraqi forces and deliver a decisive blow."

Van Riper denies being opposed to new military thinking. He just thinks it should be written in plain English and put to the test. "My main concern was that we'd see future forces trying to use these things when they've never been properly grounded in an experiment," he says.

The name Van Riper draws either scowls or rolling eyes at the Pentagon these days, but there are anecdotal signs that he has the quiet support of the uniformed military, who, after all, will be the first to discover whether the Iraq invasion plans work in real life.

"He can be a real pain in the ass, but that's good," a fellow retired officer told the Army Times. "He's a great guy, and he's a great patriot, and he's doing all those things for the right reasons."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 05:58 AM

Heartening to know, as this thread shows, that Bush does not speak for a majority in the states, any more than he was elected by one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:06 AM

LOL, Bagpuss! But Doug, why is the Pentagon meekly accepting Van Riper's account? If it's in the Guardian, it can't be true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:37 AM

Multiple Guess Questions???? It appears that Bobert has gone right to the heart of the matter. When I was in school, it was Multiple Choice. The idea was to ponder the merits of each option and choose the correct answer. Our country is being run by a bunch of wahoos who think the "hit and miss" method is the way to go. "Whadaya think, Georgie? Bomb Iraq? Annihilate the Afghans? What?" "Damn, I don't know. Just choose 'C' and we'll be right half the time...probably."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 07:05 AM

"the first U.S.-initiated war since Teddy Roosevelt" (Amos)

How about Vietnam, Grenada, Panama? Or are you speculating that they might actually make it an official war by declaring it this time?

I still don't get how it is that the fact that there is oil under Iraq proves that they have weapons of mass destruction that seriously threaten the rest of the world.

Incidentally, it's probably easier reading that piece about the Gulf manoeuvres where the US actually lost and they had to fake the results on the Guardian website. (The Guardian keeps its archives up on the net permanently and don't charge for access, unlike some media sources, so I suggest a quote and a link is probably better than posting the whole of a lengthy article.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: kendall
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 07:32 AM

Let's not forget when that bunch of mal contents started a war with Great Brittain in 1776. Has anyone read THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE? They were in the catbird seat for many years, but, their own greed and self endulgence brought them down. History is prolog.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Troll
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 11:05 AM

As far as the question of whether or not Sadam has Weapons of Mass Destruction or not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he does, considering that he used poison gas against the Kurds and against some of his own people back around the time of the Gulf War. Of course, there are those who do not consider biological and chemical agents as WMD's and insist that only nukes will fit the bill.
Some prefer a narrower definition than others but for those who accept nuclear/chemical/biological agents as all being in the class WMD, I don't feel the slightest doubt that the evidence is there in Iraq without the US having to plant it as was so snidely suggested earlier on.
BTW, I don't think North Korea has ICBM capability. I know they could hit our Pacific bases in Japan but not the US mainland. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 12:19 PM

Last I heard (about 1999), North Korea had temporarily agreed not to test the Taepo Dong-2 ICBM, but they do have it. Their mid-range Taepo Dong-1 medium range missile couldn't reach the US, but they successfully created and tested a 3-part missile (typical ICBM) instead of a 2-part missile (typical mid-range). The Taepo Dong-1 was mostly a success -- it failed to launch the satellite, but otherwise everything went well.

The -2, although untested, doesn't have much in it that is different from the -1. It's basically a conversion of the -1 rocket. But in rocket science, you never know until you test it.

The CIA thinks that the -2 would have limited accuracy hitting the continental US with a heavy payload (like a nuclear one), but Alaska and Hawaii are fair game. Of course, hitting San Bernadino instead of LA with a nuke has the same net effect!

Unfortunately, the Bush administration also ceased talks with North Korea -- the kind that generated the agreement not to test their ICBM.

Found this link detailing countries who have WMD. I don't know when the last time it was updated, but it looks decent research. Countries with WMD


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 01:03 PM

Nicole: I do believe there is concern about the continued availability of an oil supply if Saddam gets nuke capability. What would there be to prevent him from marching into Saudi Arabia and taking over the oil fields there? He tried it in Kuwait, and there evidently is no love lost between the Royal family in SA and Saddam.

Those risks to do not exist with the other countries you mentioned.

Think about what would happen if our supply of oil dried up? Were Saddam to successfully invade SA, and Russia were to decide to team up with them, they would collectively have the U. S. by the ying yang so far as oil availability is concerned. We get some oil from Mexico, but not enough to take care of our needs. Some of you will say, then we will get what we deserve because we should have dumped oil years ago, and gone to some kind of alternative fuel. Maybe so, but we didn't.

I realize by opening this subject I am inviting the cynics to charge that the only reason for invading Iraq is to protect our oil supply, and, in turn, line the pockets of Bush's friends. That's a ridiculous argument which has already been suggested in this thread. Protecting our oil supply is NOT the primary reason, but it is part of the equation I believe.

I heard a proposal floated yesterday that seems to be the best plan suggested to date. Bush should go to the U. N. and ask for revision in the requirement for weapons inspections Saddam agreed to at the end of Desert Storm. This time however, there should be no restrictions on the inspectors and they should be able to go where they want to go at any time they choose. A military force composed of U. N. troops would be in Iraq to enforce the resolution. If Saddam did not agree to such an arrangement, the world, perhaps, would see the kind of man we are dealing with, and be more receptive to changing the regime in Iraq.

And McGrath, who said the fact that there is oil in Iraq "proves that they have weapons of mass destruction?" I don't recall reading that.

As far as quoting the "Guardian" is concerned, I repeat that were I to offer quotes from the Washington Times or another right-leaning newspaper as "proof" for what I post, I would be laughed out of the forum.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 01:30 PM

Von Riper has shown the U.S. Joint Chiefs the same lesson that was taught to King George's general staff by Washington's rabble -- when you over-invest in procedures, and stop thinking, you lose. The British used antiquated formalized marching formations while the Colonists used flexible, Fabian tactics (Francis Marion, known as the Swamp Fox, is a good example).

Here, a veteran Marine demonstrated what really thinking about what was going on, instead of unrolling protocols and drills, could do.

The parallels ar einteresting, and we can only hope that the military big-wigs pay attentionn to their own lessons before someone else teaches them -- as did the Viet Cong and the terrorists who took out the USS Cole. This feller used brilliant tactical innovations which are exactly the kind that underdogs come up with under necessity. It is much harder to envision this kind of tactic from the comfort of an Admiral's stateroom aboard an aircraft carrier, I imagine.

Kevin, you are right about the operations in Panama and Grenada, which I overlooked because they were hardly wars, and came under the Monroe Doctrine. Vietnam was a conflict which evolved much more gradually, first by the French and then by the U.S. -- we did not premeditate a war and then go ahead and start one.

So there are some differences, indeed. But I appreciate the reality check!

Bush's entire argument to date is that we cannot sit idly by in the presence of a lethal threat, waiitng for first strike as a triggering event. This is a reasonable argument IF the premise that we are in fact watching a lethal threat across the table is valid. However, Bush's repeated assertions that it is so do not necessarily make it so, and given his demonstrated disrespect for truth, as distinguished from PR bushwah, I am unpersuaded.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 03:09 PM

Amos: What would it take to persuade you?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 03:38 PM

Doug,

The US does not get ANY oil from Iraq, although Iraq has plenty of it. Surprisingly, Iraq's oil embargo of the US didn't have much of an impact except to get the noses out of joint of certain oil executives.

The world's top 5 oil producing nations are: Saudi Arabia, Russia, US, Iran and China. The US's top crude supplier is Saudi Arabia, our top petroleum supplier is Canada. (Yep, Canada.)

What would stop Saddam from taking over Saudia Arabia? More than stopped him in Kuwait, and he was stopped pretty effectively. But how about a few hundred thousand US soldiers stationed on the border with considerable firepower and air supremacy, plus Saudi Arabia's own military forces, which are pretty well capable of defending themselves against someone like Iraq.

But you scenario for attacking Iraq is that Iraq and Russia are going to team up against the US? And that's why Iraq is a threat? Say what you will about Saddam (although I think he's learned a thing or two, rhetoric aside), but Putin is no stark raving idiot. Russia couldn't take on the US alone, let alone all of NATO.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: Proof of NUKES released to Congress
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 03:58 PM

Undeniable proof of nuclear warhead stockpiles and actual nuclear tests that have harmed the enviorment and taken lives was available to Congress today. Of course this information was regarding France.

The Bush intelligence team is still keeping the proof regarding Saddam under wraps since the major thrust of our suspicions is based on CIA interpretations of
Nostrodamus.

But seriously some Congressmen were briefed today about Saddam's weapon capabilitues but public information is still not available.

Congress is likely to vote for another Gulf War. Over 150 Democratic congressmen voted against the 1st Gulf War.

You remember the war over phoney incubator theft?

You remember the war where US troops exploded the stockpile of Iraqi chemical and bio weapons thus exposing many US troops to contamination but was brushed under the rug as a psychogical Gulf War "syndrome".

You remember it was that war that bin Laden claimed that the infidel US servicemen defiled the holy land of Mecca and in turn conducts a war against the US today.

Remember how Iraq attacked Saudi Arabia with exactly 2 scud missles that landed in a US military base?

No I do not think most Congressmen remember very much. Except that we won the war.

What did we win? Good will? Some exploded oil wells? Exactly how appreciative is Kuait today?

What does it matter, we won didn't we?
We tracked'em down, smoked'em out and brought'em ta justus. Didn't we


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: When ISM's collide
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:07 PM

Islam according to terrorism theology

Ladenism- a religion of faith and lies

Ladenism, is founded on fibs and oft repeated phrases.
The 10 mantras:

1) "God is Great."

2) " Allah will help us destroy the infidels."

3) "We have to defend ourselves, donations and Jihad is the only way."

4) "Since September 11, We have shown the world we can win."

5) "We will fight until every Jew and Jew lover is removed from our historic land."

6) "Hero's die for Allah."

7) "We do not need anything from the West."

"Jews and the Bush administration 'let 9/11 happen."

9) " Islam is the one true faith."

10) "Weapons of mass destruction will save us!"

Every good lie has a speck of truth in it.

The dangers of Isladenism-ism:

The plodding US action is like an angry powerful fat guy going up against Islamic judo experts. The fat guy's own weight and momentum will be used against him with such economy of movement that the judo expert will win.

Proportionality limited the 5 planes destined to destroy American landmarks and kill only a "few infidels". Once an all out US attack on the middle east begins, porportionality will be discarded.

5 planes could then be used with the grace of God to crash into 5 Nuclear power plants - rendering 90% of the inhabited US east coast unihabitable. The fleeing exposed population could then be subjected to bio agents to continue God's work.

The winds of Allah will blow the USA from the face of the Earth in 10 years time.


.............................................................................

Bushism - a religion of faith and lies

Bushism, is founded on fibs and oft repeated phrases.

The 10 commandments/mantras:

1) "George Bush is an intelligent and decent man."

2) "I have faith in our system of checks and balances."

3) "We have to defend ourselves, and WAR is the only way to do that."

4) "Since September 11, George Bush has shown strong leaderships skills."

5) "Europeans don't agree with us because they're effete appeasers."

6) "George Bush's administration is filled with solid, foreign policy pros."

7) "George Bush is doing an excellent job in the war on terror."

8) "People who say the Bush administration 'let 9/11 happen' are conspiracy nuts."

9) "The media is liberal."

10) "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!"

Every good lie has a speck of truth in it so some of the above lies may appeal to you on the surface.

The dangers of Bushism:

The danger is that our current course of plodding action is like an angry powerful fat guy going up against a judo expert. The fat guy's own weight and momentum will be used against him with such economy of movement that the judo expert will win.

Borrowing from the Muslim double edged sword, nuclear weapons will spell defeat for both racist religions that strive to oppress freedom as they choose.

ISM's are never so alike as when they're at war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: euclid
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:22 PM

IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT MUDCATTERS ARE FLAMING LIBERALS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:28 PM

Euclid: Where have you been? Of course the majority of them are! Did you post that in jest?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:33 PM

Jeeze, Euclid, that's not much of an addition to the conversation? Or is that too liberal of me?

LOL!

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:35 PM

I'm not aware that at any stage Iraq has demonstrated any reluctance to sell America or anyone else oil (apart I imagine from when there was actually a war between the countries involved). The problems with getting oil out of Iraq have arisen because of sanctions and quotas.

I'm still puzzled, Doug - the point is, the only legal or moral justification that could exist for an attack on Iraq would be that there was reason to think that this was the only way to preventing an attack being carried out by Iraq. And yet the oil keeps getting mentioned, as if somehow the fact that someone possesses something that you want is a justification for going in and taking it.

I know that is the way the world often works, and it is the way the British Empire and the American continental empire were built up in the 19th century, for example, in a way that was quoted by Hitler and Mussolini as justification for their expansionism.

But if you believe the promises and the statements of principle made by all our leaders over the last few years, that way of thinking is no longer accepted by civilised regimes. It's the way of the gangster. And if you don't believe those promises and statements, there is still a duty on citizens to do what they can to hold them to their words. (And set agains that, differences between so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" pale into insignificance.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 04:36 PM

http://forums.maestronet.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB5&Number=155816&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1&PHPSESSID=


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 05:00 PM

Donuel:

I think you should try tucking that link into a blicky.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:27 PM

McGrath,

Iraq has twice declared it would not sell oil to the US. The first time (April 2000-ish), they stopped selling. Economists declared a crisis. No crisis emerged. Iraq sold their oil to other consumers, and other producers sold us their oil.

The second time (November 2001-ish) was, apparently, a publicity stunt. Iraq declared (again) it would not sell the US oil (when it already wasn't) as a response to the attack on Afghanistan, stating that the attack on the country instead of just attacking the terrorists violated international law. (Which it did.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:32 PM

My theory is that Saddam is unlikely to attempt to conquer the US because the US can stomp Iraq flat any time. It will of course cost a a lot of deaths.

However, If people like Bush or John Ashcroft or Doug R are actually going to be risking their lives on the front lines, and still favor war, they have my respect.

If they're going to stay at home and say, "Let's you and him fight; I'm real sorry, but I can't go myself." they do not.

Clint


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 06:41 PM

"Iraq sold their oil to other consumers, and other producers sold us their oil."

So technically they weren't selling to the US - but it amounts to the same thing. In any case, even if the effect were that the USA wasn't getting some oil it might want, that would do nothing whatsoever to strengthen the case for armed intervention to get hold of it.

I mean, even if the basis of international law on such matters were to become "from each according to their abilities, and to each according to their needs" - which I somehow think is not what "the free market system" is supposed to be about - the USA would not exactly be in the front line of needy countries.

If there is a valid case for war against Iraq, it can't be to make money for people in the oil business.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 07:09 PM

Well, danged, ain't this something. Junior has sure Painted himself into the proverbial corner. All this huff and puff was 'sposed to get Saddam to just roll over. Saddam has to be loving all this. Who's controling whom?

Junior is going to go the United Nations wutgh his huff and puff act and pictures and blah, blah, blah and after the speech all the major media is gonna say what a onderfyl job he did and Doug will be telling us, "I told you so." Anf for a week or so we're gonna get a steady diet of Dumb Rumdfield doing his best huff and puff.

But as the smoke clears its going to be apparent, that inspite of all the comotion, that no actaul evidence was produced and Bush again will be painted into a corner. Problem is, Junior will have hust bombed Bagdad and...

Well, Junior does have one chance to salvage a place in history that isn't going to find his name on a list including Benedict Arnold, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and others. He can go before the United Nations and call for an Emergency Middle East Summit to deal with all the problems facing the Middle East. And yes, Saddam, Sharon and Arafat invitees. Yeah, he could signal that the US is now up to the task of providing the leadership role that the world expects of it. Sure, he'll ruffle a few feathers of some of the aging hawks who want to just kink one more butt before they go outm but heck with them. Sure, it's gonna mean that corporate America is going to have to retool thier planys toward human friendly profucts but, hey, that's long overdue...

Yeah, this is his only option to saty off the looser's list. Even if the US does win a hot wat against Iraq, it will pay many times over for its shallow victory as it will then have to fear terorist reprisals for the rest of all our lives, and our kids lives.

Does Bush have the courage to break the cycle? Who knows. We know he'd never figure it for himself, that's for sure...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 09:06 PM

There was of course a major US-Brit assault on Iraq today, in the northwest corner of the southern no-fly zone. Looks like they might be trying to open up a safe route in via Jordan, though Jordan is still opposed as far as I know, and Turkey remains the most likely launchpad.

Troll, with respect, an "assumption" about WMDs is no basis for launching a frigging war. There's going to have to be some kind of proof. In the meantime why not go after the countries with tried and tested nuclear WMDs - Pakistan, India, China, France, Russia, Ukraine, UK, Israel, North Korea and perhaps a few others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Troll
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 09:52 PM

Fionn, I never said that the posession or the assumed posession of WMD's was a basis for launching a war. I merely pointer out that that I feel that there is reasonable cause to believe that Iraq has them in one or more forms.
If Sadam would allow UN inspectors to truly inspect, the matter could be laid to rest once and for all. In my view, the fact that he has refused for years to allow inspections in any meaningful sense of the word indicates that he has something that he wants to hide from the world.
Maybe he collects My Little Pony figures and doesn't want anyone to find out because it would clash with his "tough guy" image.
Amos, I hate to disagree with you, but the American Army ubder George Washington used pretty much the same linear tactice as the British, Hollywood notwithstanding. Units like Marions rarely, if ever, met the enemy in open battle. Their clashes were more of the it-and-run variety, which, while debilitating in terms of security and the loss of supplies, were only in small part responsible for the Colonists ultimate victory.
If you look at the world situation at that time, the British Empire was having trouble all over the would and were overextended.
The linear tactics of the day were used right up through the Napoleanic Wars when weapons technology made small mobile units more effective and on into the American Civil War.
In fact, the early tactics in WWI were mostly linear in nature where troop movements were concerned until the true destructive power of the machine gun was finally realized by the Allied Commanders.
The Battle of the Somme comes to mind. Tens of thousands of casualties in the first HOUR alone as the men marched out of the trenches in parade-ground formation.

troll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 09:54 PM

As I understand it, the "major assault" was on an offending airbase within the no-fly zone; there have been frequent violations of the no-fly zone which by themselves would be sufficient rationale for the counteraction. It is unusual (compared to the same operations over the last year) in that it involved USN planes.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 10:18 PM

Too much MST (Military Science Training) going on here. Ol' Bobert sniffin' that some folks in war paint. Hey!!!! Come on!!!!

Like John said, "Give peace a chance".... Come on!!! Plenty of time to figure stategies if we fail as humans...

Come on.... Let's just back up two days in *our* thinking and get this thing stopped, how about it....

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Sep 02 - 11:22 PM

I think the whole "no-fly" zone is kinda hysterical in a dark, sick way. The no-fly zone doesn't mean no-fly, it's an arbitary chunk of Iraqi airspace that the US and Britain flies in a shoots down anything bigger than a kite. Violating the so-called no-fly zone is violating a creation of the US and Britain (but not the UN).

Occassionally, somebody from Iraq goes out there in a plane. Foolhardy, but my guess is that young male idiots who join the army for battle glory are the same in any language or culture. Most of the time the "violations" are Iraqi anti-aircraft shooting at US and UK aircraft who are flying over IRAQI territory.

Ironically, both Iran and Turkey violate the no-fly zone to conduct their own target practice in Iraq, but we aren't saying that's provocation for all-out war. It's not a peace zone, it's zone in which the US and UK continue to conduct war, and control an area which is essentially fair game for anyone who wants to take a pot-shot at Iraq. Your tax dollars at work.

So, bombing in Iraq is back in the news. Sorry to say, but we've been bombing something in Iraq at least once a week for the past 10 years. Something like 1100 missiles a year to about 350-400 targets.

Ironically, both Iran and Turkey violate the no-fly zones to conduct their own target practice in Iraq, but we aren't saying that's provocation for all-out war. It's not a peace zone, it's zone in which the US and UK continue to conduct a low-level war, one which has no real objective and no strategy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 01:09 AM

Bobert, you on Prozak? :>)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 10:46 AM

Prozak, Doug! Heck no! My drug of choice is life! And an occasional pull on the peace pipe...

I'm just beginning realize that your guy is so intent on carving out some level of "legitamacy" for an office he wasn't elected to... that between the p.r. folks and Rumsfield, he is winning over more folks than I'd like to see toward supporting his amateurish foriegn policy.

Well, my friend. You all go off and have your little war but leave me out. It's wrong! There are more intellegent ways to achieve a much more peaceful planet than continuing a cycle of failed human behavior...

And the worst thing about it is that no one in any position of authority is talking about alternatives. No, they're just lining up behind one check list or another before we initiate the insanity. That's further proff that democracy, as practiced in the US these days is a failed system because there's no one speaking for the millions of folks who see things pretty much the way I view them...

Danged...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Amos
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM

Danged indeed,. Big Bobert. This surely is the hootenannyfrom hell, and there probably will be blood on the sand before it is over. Arms and legs, too, no longer attached. Some human brain fragments, once supporting something resembling thought. Families without parents, and children in endless grief -- who may well grow up seeking to revenge their clans, BTW. Hot steel fragments opening intestines to the daylight and bones snapping under the weight of collapsing buildings. Inconsolable widows.

Hot blood and ruined human guts. And lots and lots of pure, screaming, unstopping, unconscionable pain.

This is what is being discussed here.

Let's face that part of it squarely, while we sling our cool, abstract polysyllables around on points of policy.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 11:23 AM

And does anyone anywhere seriously think going to war with Iraq will do anything to reduce the possibility of another September 11 in the future?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: kendall
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 12:12 PM

There is nothing scarier than ignorance in action. Goethe'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: DougR
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 12:28 PM

Bobert: "Millions of people?" Come now, I think you are allowing the fact that the majority of the mudcatters probably agree with your POV get in the way of logic. Thousands, maybe. Hundreds? :>)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Bushwah and Bush War: Part 3
From: Peg
Date: 07 Sep 02 - 12:41 PM

Clearly it is millions of people who do not support this war effort, and they are the same people that have been protesting other senseless invasions, bombings and attacks p[erpetrated by the USA for years now. Been on a college campus lately? If you see an anti-war rally with, say, two hundred students, and figure there must be at least, oh, a thousand other campuses with similar numbers of people engaged in similar activities...well, that gets you at least into the high thousands...

Not counting those who share this opinion who not attend rallies but do things like write letters or discuss things online (as we are doing) and yes, I would say "milions" is a safe bet.

There are millions of war-mongers, too. And no doubt, before all this is over, there will be millions of corpses.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 25 January 6:03 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.