Re: Some Direct Questions -- Adilbrand Noblesword's Hall of Warriors

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:17:50 02/19/03 Wed
Author: mt. healthy mountaineer
Subject: Re: Some Direct Questions
In reply to: Adilbrand 's message, "Some Direct Questions" on 17:09:32 02/19/03 Wed

1) What is the advantage war has over a diplomatic and economic peace?

-if we sit and do nothing, he has shown a propensity to give weapons, logistical help, etc. to terrorists.(for direct evidence - see our one-legged terrorist caught by the British)

We are already at war and have been for years - Sept. 11th just drove the point home to most of us. How many embassies, resorts, hotels, ships, etc. have to be bombed? How many planes and ships have to be hijacked? Is it peace?

Where is all of the stuff he had at the end of the Gulf War? He is missing literally tons of chemical weapons. Did he lose them? Did he give them away? To whom? He will not account for them. He cannot produce the records of their destruction (the original inspectors were literally just there to witness their destruction - but he refused to cooperate after a few years and threw them out in 1998). Where are those weapons?

2) What would the end objective of war be? (i.e. Will we establish the new government for them? Will we just help them rebuild and recreate a new monster? Will we just cause a bunch of noise, kill a bunch of people, but really change very little? We warred with them once - will another one make a difference?)

-This is your best question. We'd better have a mission statement. I'd say - Removal of Sadaam and the Baath party and the location of the aforementioned weapons.

3) Why is Bush making it sound like a religious crusade?

-how? On Sept. 11, 2001 he made the mistake of using that word ("Crusade"), not realizing that although that word has lost its religious significance here, it is very much full of religious overtones there.

If you mean why does he use phrases like "operation enduring freedom", then that is a different matter entirely. That would be standard U.S. catch phrasology.

If you mean why does he sound impassioned about what he sees as the defense of the United States, well he should be impassioned about the defense of the United States - its one of the few stated roles of the President in the Constitution.

4) Why didn't we conquer them or oust Saddam from power the first time we went to war with them?

-Two reasons:

1. The U.N. mandate clearly stated that all Desert Storm was supposed to do was oust him from Kuwait.

2. There was no one to replace Sadaam (he's very efficient in eliminating pretenders to the throne) and we were afraid of the expense of rebuilding Iraq's government - remember that we got the Japanese and the Saudis to pay for a lot of the war and we were accused by some activists of being mercenaries.

5) Why aren't the other major powers (Germany, France, Spain, Mexico, Canada, etc) willing to send hordes of troops to help us destroy Iraq?

-Mexico stays out of all most international crises.
-I've not heard a Canadian response.
-SPAIN is VERY MUCH for it. As is England. Russia will come around. Those 3 countries have extensive, dramatic experience with terrorism (Basque, Irish and Chechnian, respectively) - they know the network through which these groups get their supplies.

-France and Germany are against it, in my opinion, for two reasons:

#1 - France and Germany now have extensive Arab minority populations. In France, the population of Arabs is akin to our Hispanic population. In Germany, a little less. The Arabs in France have been esp. vocal and more than a little threatening. France has taken on a decided anti-Jewish tint lately in domestic politics and this plays out in Middle Eastern politics as being pro-Arab.

#2 - France and Germany sold Iraq a great deal of the equipment they used to build their weapons. France sold them several nuclear facilities over everyone's objections. Germany sold Sadaam the makings of a giant cannon that could launch a nuclear or biological weapon into low orbit and drop it just about anywhere (yes, it sounds silly but I watched a show on discovery channel about it a couple of years ago and most scientists think it could work for a couple of shots). The British broke up that little idea in the mid-90s.

6) Why not just assassinate Saddam and his advisors?

-Sadaam's a clever man. He publishes no itinerary. Don't you think his own people have been coming after him for years? He has doubles a la the movie "Moon over Parador" (a few years ago it was thought that he may have died of a heart attack and a double may have taken over)

Interestingly, the CIA is supposed to have gotten hold of private cell phone and e-mail addresses of some of his generals and the US has informed them that we know who they are and where they are - and that they'd better not put up a fight when and if the time comes.

All that said - I honestly am not comfortable with an invasion. I would not be surprised if we fight, but I honestly would not be surprised if we don't. All of the progress we've had lately has come after the build up of American forces - the return of Inspectors, the permission to talk with scientists, the declarations (B.S.-filled as they are, according the UN experts) about weapons, the defections of one of his top body guards. Have you ever had a moment where your boys don't take you seriously unless you stand up and actually go over and make sure they understand you are serious?

Back to my own misgivings - I'm not sure its worth all of the death and mayhem that war bring. But, I damn sure know that talking with him does nothing but give him more time to retrench and maneuver and possibly distibute his weaponry. Having tea with him and making nice-nice will do nothing except make you have to go pee. Its damned hard to have shared goals with someone who wants you dead.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

France -- Mt. Healthy Mountaineer, 09:49:06 02/20/03 Thu
- Re: France -- mt. healthy mountaineer, 11:01:03 02/25/03 Tue