Topic awaiting preservation: Gulf War 2: The Revenge of the Son (Page 3 of 4)

Watch how you talk about Jay. YOU don't know him. I do. A better man you'd not find and he's right for this job. You folks in here are just the same as you were a while ago. Does your arrogance NOT ever stop?

Sheesh just came in to find something and I see this. Unreal. AND some of us are making shit up.

^^

Ummm...maybe you could be a bit more specific, ettie? What shit is being made up? And since when did anybody say anything personal about General Jay? I think most comments were more directed to the situation, and how it's developing...I certainly do not have anything personally against General Jay. I just question the Bush Administrations actions by planning to impose a military governor in post-conflict Iraq.


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

Oh, blow it out your ass ettie.

Try reading the posts and get the meaning behind them rather than jumping at the first thing that catches your eye.

As I said to Morgan Ramsey a few weeks ago: if we pissed you off so badly last time, why come back?

Hey all! WS, in response to a couple of points..

quote:

---

It is very important to show this, so that all the armchair Generals out there, who supported this, get a good face-full, of what war is. Namely, American troops are being killed. And they are being killed, for what?

---

There is a sparkling naievity breeding among the top brass and media heads, where they still like us to believe that the war isnt *that bad* because we can still count the casualties on our side on our fingers and toes. thought you all might enjoy this ..

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


Also,

quote:

---

Well, there are many dictators that have been far worse, and we never did anything about it. And there are dictators, that we are not going to do anything about, that have done far worse, and are continuing to do so.

---

Bush cited in his 'Why Saddam must go' speech the main reasoning was the apparent threat of WMD. Great. But nobody ever accused our government of giving the full frontal truth. We all already know that the Bush wealth is based in oil. We took the oil fields in southern Iraq first. Maybe purely coincidence. Doesnt really consecrate the deployment of every US Marine who's recruited in the last 10 years to the middle of the desert, but I'm just one voter, and my opinion doesnt matter.
My problem lies in the fact that the troops dont really know what they're fighting for either. The only source they're getting is CNN in the mess hall on every satellite linked TV they can muster. Granted Hussein's use of NBC tactics and the torture, rape and murder of American and Coalition troops acts as fuel to the fire, it still doesnt justify the original invasion. Nobody knows what we're burning for.
Bush proclaims it to be about democracy. Let freedom ring. But if democracy were that greatly needed, a] why aren't they happy to see us, and b] why does Hussein still have a standing army who are willing to fight and die for him of such a sizable mass that we have to bully 45 other countries into supporting the war effort. Half of Iraq didnt even know they had a dictator until we invaded *last time* and the other half was divided in either indifference or support of the man we are chasing around caves and basements.
In real world terms, that's Japan coming in to the States right now and saying 'Hey, we dont like your president. We're going to bomb you until you kick him out and elect someone more qualified.' We may not particularly like him either, but he's ours. This isnt to say i wouldnt take a small amount of glee in Saddam's head on a pigpole on my front lawn, but.. I'm still reserved in support because I have no idea what just happened.



[This message has been edited by The Crawling Chaos (edited 03-27-2003).]

big
fat
thread

Jason

When you guys start a continuation thread you should call it Gulf War Tutu: The Revenge of the Son

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

Saddam heading for Syria? Well, I'm not getting my hopes up too much but it sure would be a welcome event.

quote:

---

Also, I offer my apology if I have misunderstood you. Please feel free to correct my mistakes, and mis-judgements.

---

Thanks. Apology accepted. I?m going to remember this the next time and I?m going to focus more on the facts of the discussion from now on as I usually prefer to do.

quote:

---

I said, eliminate the repulican guard ring around Baghdad first...

---

I got the distinct impression from your post that you had hardly any regard for the citizens of Baghdad. You never mentioned anything about getting them out first. You say the reason I didn?t understand that is because I?m somewhat ignorant on the ways of war. I admit I don?t understand where that many people would go even if they could get out. How would they be fed and sheltered? The humanitarian relief is just now rolling in and only in the South. Please explain how that works I would like to know.

The entire ?barbarism? thing came from my thinking you meant to level Baghdad with the citizens still there. That is what blew me away but you are now making it clear you would not do that unless they cleared out, right?

quote:

---

...every American that supports Mr. Bush in this episode of his insanity is responsible for.

---

Time will be the judge of this. I don?t know the future, I can only tell you why I support these actions. I knew we would lose lives but sometimes I think you forget that so do the soldiers. We have a volunteer army who understand their job can be very dangerous. Police officers are killed in the line of duty all the time but we don?t have mass protests calling for the police to stop enforceing the law because they might die in the process. If we had a military draft, I would be singing a different tune on this.

quote:

---

If you can, talk with those who were involved in house-to-house fighting in either WWII, or Lebenon.

---

I appreciate your views on the tactical issues. I wanted to add about the house-to-house in Baghdad is that the shorter buildings are better than in Lebanon. The higher the buildings the worse it is for that type of fighting.

I also just spoke with a friend today I hadn?t seen since the war started and she pointed out that the troops from Northern Ireland have been training the other troops in city fighting since they have a lot of experience with that. That had never occurred to me and I thought that was very interesting. You might have an opinion about those troops and for that matter didn?t tomeaglez have some experience in that arena? I would love some more insight on this from you and him.

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for your alternative plan. I still think that maybe you are not getting enough information, on what is happening on the front line...

---

WS, ummm I never said I had an alternative plan... I?m on board with the current plan. You have already pointed out that I don?t know enough about war and that is why I trust our military to carry out this objective competently. They have proven their ability time and again and especially in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan. Remember how so many people were predicting another Vietnam in Afghanistan? Didn?t happen.

I am willing to listen to why you have so little faith in this operation. I will continue to consider your views on how we are totally screwing things up in this war. Then I?m going to compare that with the eventual outcome. You?ve made it more than clear a few times that I should not speak about things I don?t know enough about and I think that is actually fair advice.

About not getting enough information... I really don?t think that is a problem. I don?t know what you?re getting in Germany but with the Internet, I?d say we both have access to a wide variety of sources

quote:

---

...when it comes to the Bible...you have much more knowledge than I do. Well, in this situation, it is the opposite.

---

I appreciate that and I am going to do my best to keep that in mind. Expect me to ask lots of questions of you then because I will need to test your theories and views about war. In short, I need to question as you recommend. I think that is a very fair arrangement

quote:

---

Where then, lie your priorities?

---

I want to minimize coalition casualties *and* Iraqi civilian casualties. I think we can both agree on that.

quote:

---

And one last thing, what if Saddam really doesn't have any WMD? How do you then justify the conflict in Iraq, if that is true?
...
And there are dictators, that we are not going to do anything about, that have done far worse, and are continuing to do so.

---

I'm positive WMD will be found. I have explained in other threads precisely why Hussein needs to be taken out and why some heinous government like that of Sudan will be left alone. In short, he's an expansionist, he threatens the world economy's lifeline, and he poses an increasing threat to the United States through his dealings with terrorists and what he is likely to provide them by way of bio/chem/nuke weapons. He simply could not be allowed to continue on his path unchallenged. Not all regimes have all of that going for them.

quote:

---

Our best Generals are not leading it. Why is that?

---

Now this really has me interested and I don't know enough about it. What is wrong with Franks and who should be running this operation? Like I told you before, I am not a military man and that is why I trust our military to get the job done.

quote:

---

Last, so far, no-one is really sure if the Iraqi people want to be liberated, or not.

---

Please read the article I posted above about the human shield that was surprised to learn a good many Iraqis want Hussein taken out but for fear of reprisal have to watch what they say with extreme care.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-28-2003).]

quote:

---

humanitarian relief

---

This has really nothing to do with military actions directly...it is more of a support issue, and one that this lightning move largely precluded...now that the troops are being massed, it would be relatively easy, to bring the necessary relief to them - they would no longer be in Baghdad, after all. That with the port, is an entirely different issue, and relief for most Iraqis within cities is, as well. On can ship supplies through Kuwait...it's not that difficult, over land. They are doing it for the troops, they can do it for civilians. I don't see this as a problem, more a small challenge, maybe...and it is largely a logistical one.

quote:

---

level Baghdad with the citizens still there

---

Heh. No, I'm not particularly bloodthirsty. Of course the civilians must be given not only a chance to get out of the city, but the means and opportunaty to do so...before any action in Baghdad takes place, be it levelling or house-to-house.

quote:

---

I knew we would lose lives but sometimes I think you forget that so do the soldiers

---

No, I could never forget this...I lived it for 11 years, and was involved in the Gulf War. However, there is a difference between responsibly leading our troops, and irresponsibly. We know the difference, the Nam showed them to us. Somalia, as well. In fact, no good leader can forget this...or should.

quote:

---

troops from Northern Ireland have been training the other troops in city fighting since they have a lot of experience with that

---

I can't speak for Tom, he'll have to put in his own words. Training is one thing, reality another. Point is, irregardless of training and equiptment, house-to-house always involves increased casualties among troops, esp. attacking troops. If it can be avoided, then it should. If there are alternatives, they should be used. This is my main point here. Remove the houses, and it becomes a moot point.

quote:

---

You have already pointed out that I don’t know enough about war and that is why I trust our military to carry out this objective competently. They have proven their ability time and again and especially in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan. Remember how so many people were predicting another Vietnam in Afghanistan? Didn’t happen.

---

Yes, but who lead that? It wasn't General Frank. And the strategy was Colin Powell's, not Mr. Rumsfelds (Overwhelming force). Also, be aware that Afghanistan is not done, we still have troops there, and there is still resistance. I would suggest (if you haven't already) reading the Military Bible, The Art of War and 5 Rings. Anybody who wishes to understand war, needs to study these books. They are manditory, for Military studies. I heartily recommend them.

quote:

---

I am willing to listen to why you have so little faith in this operation. I will continue to consider your views on how we are totally screwing things up in this war.

---

By now, you must be beginning to wonder, what's going on in Iraq. At the very least, you must be asking yourself, at the sudden change in tactics. First, we have a 'blitz' of troops to Baghdad...and not a large force. Then, problems with the logistics and supplies. Probleems with the Northern front (or lack thereof). First we skirt the cities, now we are having problems with them. Propaganda lies (always the first sign of trouble), about this battle, that taken place, low to non-existant casualty counts, then information censorship. I see signs all over the place, that things are much different, than the top brass (and the Bush administration) want to admit. And the strategy that was used (and counted on to work), was based on faulty conclusions...irregardless, of why they are faulty. The Iraqis are not surrending in masses (doesn't matter why, from a military standpoint), and the civilians are not 'wildly welcoming' the troops (irregardless as to why). We don't really need to go into the whys of that...for they are only important when choosing a strategy, but we already know, that Mr. Rumsfelds strategy doesn't (and didn't) work...that's why it's being changed, that's why the ground troops in Turkey are being shipped through the Suez to Kuwait, to join up, that's why more heavy armor is being shipped in, and that's why the troops on the front are not pushing forwards (enmassing, instead). We've seen other failures of judgement, as well...the Apache disaster (yep, that's right...militarily speaking, a disaster), cases of friendly fire, declaring a 'zone' is clear of the enemy when it is not (and suffering casualties because of it), and an actual fire-fight between our own troops (and this one is very strange, not only because it occured, but because, apparently, no-one was killed. Either the US military is not that effective in battle, or we have been lied to...and there were casualties. I suspect the later, as the laboratory for identifying the dead has called up 100+ reservists to help out with the casualties, which up to know 'only' include 16...you don't need 100+ extra people to identify 16 bodies).

Now, I think reason is starting to slowly sink in now...and the strategy is shifting back to Overwhelming force...as Mr. Rumsfelds strategy has failed. That's why I am so enraged, at the Administration, and how this thing is being run...it should have been in place from the go, with a General who has not only experience with this strategy, but experience with the Iraqis, and leading troops in wartime. This would have spared American and British lives. I'm not against the fact that war can result in casualties, I'm against needlessly throwing the lives of our troops away! And that is what this failed strategy has done.

As for our best Generals, I prepared a bit below.


General Franks - He was chosen for this by Mr. Rumsfeld, who has ignored Colin Powell and his docrine on over-whelming force, which was so effective in both the first Gulf War, and Afghanistan. Nothing personal against Gen. Franks, but he is really just Mr. Rumsfelds 'whipping boy'...a career officer who is 'looking for his big chance', and has received it. That doesn't make him the best man for the job - far from it. However, to impliment Mr. Rumsfelds 'new' military theory, those that would have been better didn't want to do it, for good reason (as we have found out). Stormin' Norman would have been a better choice, but only for the overwhelming force scenario. Because he spoke out rather negatively against Mr. Rumsfelds plan (this light, 'blitz' strategy), he was blacklisted, and career-sabotaged by Mr. Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration. That is sad, because he has the experience that we need against the Iraqis...he has faced and defeated them before. He is also an excellent General, and I enjoyed serving under him.

There is one more thing - and you put it well, that politics should be seperated from the actual warmaking. However, this conflict is exactly the opposite. Politics is running it, Mr. Rumsfeld is not a competent warmaker, and neither is Mr. Bush (both have never had actual war experience - they are politicians, and should have been listening to Mr. Powell). Mr. Colin Powell does, but he is not being listened to, at least, he wasn't...now, maybe he is...I certainly hope so, in order to avoid a total disaster. This conflict can still be won...we haven't progress so far, that it is not possible. I see the beginnings of a new strategy, and that one of Overwhelming force...this brings in me hope. Of course, that will prolong the war (now), so I guess the Neo-Americans are also cheering it on...which I don't like, in particular. I truly wish that Overwhelming force had been done from the beginning...this thing would be over, by now, with minimal loss to our troops. Now we will have to wait, until enough troops and armor can be brought into position, which is having a negative effect on the civilian population!

Because of these specific reasons, I am unhappy with the conflict so far, and I cannot accredit the Bush administration, nor Mr. Rumsfeld, with anything near a 'good' grade for it. Irregardless of the outcome (which I hope will be as bloodless as possible), these points have shown, that Mr. Bush and his administration is not up to the task, of directing our forces, and therefore the conflict, let alone trying to do the 'Pax Americana' idea.

That they seem to finally have realized their mistakes, and are trying to correct them, is good, but not enough. We have already lost lives among the troops because of this. And that is the point, really - war penalizes mistakes with death.

There is an old adage - 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Overwhelming Force works, it's been tried and tested, and it's been very successful. Why then, try something experimental, that has never been tried or tested (this 'blitz idea' of Mr. Rumsfeld)? It cost American lives, to find out that it doesn't work. This is, quite simply, unacceptable, irregardless of how one looks at it, especially considering that the alternative (Overwhelming Force) exists that works! How can any American support an administration, that is willing to bet (and spend) American lives on such a whim?

Now, I hear people saying, 'Yes, but it did manage us to capture the Oil fields, and to contain Saddam in Baghdad' - while this is certainly true, overwhelming force would have accomplished the first, as well, and as for the second...he wasn't going anywhere, anyway. In fact, it was (and is) his strategy to draw our troops to a pre-destined point, to play by his rules (which, up until now, we have been doing). Unless we change tactics (and the rules), we then have to beat him at his own game - very risky...and why go the risk, when it can be done differently? I'm not willing to throw American lives away, just to 'beat' Saddam at his own game...better to use another tactic, that takes Saddam by surprise, and spare our troops as much as possible. I hope, now that 'blitz troops'( or whatever Mr. Rumsfeld calls his little 'disaster') has clearly failed, that we will do so. I also hope to god that Mr. Bush has enough sense to give the reins of control over to someone who knows what they are doing, namely, Mr. Colin Powell.

And this General says it war will take longer than originally planned is exactly what I am talking about...and direct evidence, that I am right.

quote:

---

The commander of U.S. Army forces in the Persian Gulf region says removal of the Iraqi government is likely to take longer than originally thought. General William Wallace says overextended supply lines and stiffer-than-expected resistance from Iraqi forces using unconventional tactics have slowed the U.S. drive toward Baghdad.

General Wallace is quoted in the New York Times and Washington Post as saying the enemy faced by coalition forces is different than the one they prepared for "war games against".

He described Iraqi fighters as willing to launch suicide attacks against British and U.S. forces, and spoke of incidents in which Baghdad loyalists are forcing civilians to fight by threatening their safety. The general's remarks come as at least 100,000 more U.S. and allied troops are on their way to Iraq to reinforce the 125,000 troops already there.

However, a U.S. military spokesman, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, denied that military planners had underestimated the Iraqi forces. Thursday, President Bush said the United States and its allies will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to overthrow Saddam Hussein and put an end to what Mr. Bush calls the Iraqi leader's "grip of terror."

--VOA

---

Of course, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, denied that military planners had underestimated the Iraqi forces. Heh, yeah, what else could he say...either tell the truth, and shoot his career down, or just parrot the Bush line...give me a break. How stupid does he think we are?



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-28-2003).]

Thanks, there are some very interesting points there. I am hearing you be an advocate for a specific approach to war which goes against another faction in the military establishment of alternative tactics. On the one hand, we have the Powell Doctrine and on the other we have I guess the Rumsfeld approach.

I have a question for you. I was listening to the radio this morning as I do every morning and there is a military analyst on the local station, Captain Dale Dye. He's a former marine and he was the one that did the house-to-house fighting in Nam (he's not a personal friend I'm sorry for the confusion there) Anyway, he addressed this very issue you brought up about the two approaches to this war. He said that in the Gulf War the Powell Doctrine was definitely the way to go, no doubt about it. However, he said that he did not think it was the right tactic for *this* war because of the civilian concern.

In the Gulf he pointed out we went up solely against the Iraqi military. But because we are now involved in liberation, strictly following the Powell Doctrine would be a mistake.

Furthermore he explained what did bother him greatly and that was not being able to attack Baghdad from the North through Turkey. Had we been able to do that, it would have drawn many of the defending forces in the South upward and had a much greater effect. He then added that this shift is causing us to do a tap dance but we are very good at tap dancing It is very interesting listening to him. BTW, did you serve in the Marines? This guy's a marine and quite proud of it. For that matter have you ever heard of him? Here are some links about him:
http://www.dvdfever.co.uk/reviews/daledye.shtml http://www.lordly.com/talent/lordly/DyeDale.html http://www.kfi640.com/daledye.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/10/15/dale_dye_2001_3_interview.shtml


I was re-reading your words and realized that you said these two things just paragraphs apart:

quote:

---

We both know (or should) that there is a very real danger of WMD being used here.
. . .
And one last thing, what if Saddam really doesn't have any WMD?

---

I am really not saying you contradicted yourself because I know you were making a larger point with that second statement but what I want to know from you is, what do you personally with your knowledge of war and this situation believe to be the case? Do you think he possesses such weapons or not?

Emps, I was thinking of you last night and this morning because on the local talk radio stations, KFI640 AM and KABC 790 here in LA, they are beginning to have joint call in programs with British talk show hosts. They have been taking British and American calls alternately and it is very interesting to hear the opinions from both. I think the thing that is most striking is how very similar the opinions are both for and against this war from both our countries.

This morning Bill Handel was sharing air time with David Prever. Are you familiar with him? Where does his station fit into the political spectrum over there?

I can tell you that Bill Handel is pretty right wing when it comes to the economy and taking down people like Hussein but he is *very* liberal when it comes to social issues. This is a common mixture among our conservatives in the US to be socially liberal and economically conservative.

I'm not discussing shite with you. You just all know everything...yet don't have the sense you were born with.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_13/b3826609.htm

Great article, I didn't know much about this guy before. I guess I don't know much about you either, ettie. What's with the animosity? I'm probably missing out on some Asylum history on that one.

While I am in no way an expert on these issues, or even all that up to speed on them, I did have a question when I read one part of that article that ettie posted. It said:

quote:

---

Garner coaxed them [Kurds] back down by persuading Saddam's troops to withdraw

---

I was under the impression that there was no coaxing going on, that we had sent military force in because the Kurds were being slaughtered and Saddam's troops left...there was no diplomacy going on. Could someone please tell me if that's correct or not??
I also have the understanding that Rumsfeld is part of the 'hawks' at the Pentagon? Would it be safe to assume the same of Garner since they are such close friends?
I'm not asking to stir the pot...but I do want to make sure that my information is correct.

ettie, don't you work at the Pentagon??

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Well gee, ettie, thanks for dropping by to let us know you won't discuss anything with us



(bug - no big thing, ettie just flipped out on a few occasions for no reason and then left in a huff because of it somehow....=)

Al-Qaeda 'with Saddam forces' I came across this today. This would seem to be a direct link if true.

Lacuna, we'll have to look into the details of what happened after the first Gulf War. I agree that sounds odd that he persuaded the Iraqi troops to withdraw.

But to be clear about what that article does say, notice it was the Kurds who fled to the hills because of the Iraqi troops. Apparently Garner was able to get the Iraqi troops to pull out of the North and then convinced the Kurds it was safe to come back to their homes. We established a NoFlyZone in that area and assuming that was in effect at this time, it could certainly have played a role in convincing Hussein's forces to withdraw, i.e. by threatening air attacks if they did not.

But I'll do some digging on this and get back. Hopefully someone else here knows more about the history of that and enlighten us all.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-29-2003).]

quote:

---

In the Gulf he pointed out we went up solely against the Iraqi military. But because we are now involved in liberation, strictly following the Powell Doctrine would be a mistake.

---

Well, I know of the guy...my point is what kind of alternative is he then talking about? And the other thing - why then, are American forces going back to the Overwhelming Force method? Either way, if you support that guy's way of thinking, there is a problem in Iraq accordingly...either Overwhelming Force is wrong (according to what you have said he said)...but the other tactic failed miserably...and now they are going back to Overwhelming Force...anyway you look at it, it's wrong. And being wrong in war is not a good thing...not at all. In fact, it's deadly.

No, I most surely was not a marine - US Air Force and US Army.

And in the interview, he hit on a major issue...that we had not properly understood the enemy in Nam...and quite frankly, I believe we have done the same in Iraq. But time will tell...and body counts.

As for WMD...this one is puzzling me to no end...I can't for the life in me understand, if Saddam has them, why he hasn't used them yet. It just doesn't make sense. Personally, I would use them, and I would give them to units that were ambushing the supply lines and lesser defended areas...and the oil fields. I would also have heaps buried in the ground around Baghdad, ready to be detonated and released, as the enemy came within range (a wonderful surprise tactic). But then, I am not Saddam...and quite frankly, I'm really beginning to doubt that he has them. Or, maybe he has them, and is not willing to use them. Now, that would be interesting...maybe we just don't understand Saddam well enough. Or maybe he really is dead...that is a question that I've been asking...what if he is already dead, but the Iraqis keep on fighting? What if, even if the regime is destroyed, the Iraqis keep on fighting?

To put it bluntly : I don't know, and there are, at this point, too many unknowns to accurately say (IMHO).

As for the proposed military governor in Iraq (with 3 American civilians for each area)...this is exactly how the Romans ruled their conquered lands...this is unacceptable, if you ask me. I think it will not bring the expected results...far from it. I also feel that General Jay will be under enormous stress, and pressure, to make it work...I don't think that he will get a real chance to do it, though...I'm sure the Bush Administration will keep a tight 'political' finger on him...if not, that would be a radical departure from the way that the Bush administration has done things, up to this point. But first, we have to win the war...I think that's proving hard enough, at this point.

And over the weekend, I heard the reports from that British soldier on CNN...very interesting...I guess he just shot his career to all hell and back...gutsy move, I must say...I can only applaud the guy. That finally lends real evidence, that I'm right - that Iraq was not only underestimated, but that the situation was fully mis-understood. I just hope that those sitting above and watching the show were listening...and take it to heart, and react accordingly...

I've also seen the...rather ineffective reports on the 'northern front'...bombing runs that don't strike the target? Artillery strikes? That is strange...I guess they are not using precision ordinance in the North...and the Iraqi solders just casually maintain their positions, in full site of the cameras...no real stress or effects to be noted...so at the moment, I guess there is no Northern front...not yet, anyway...

And yes, I do think the Bush administration did purposely mis-lead the public, about the length and simplicity of the conflict...it would fit right in, with the way the Bush administration has always done things...and will continue to do things.

Funniest thing I've heard ol' Mr. Bush say to this point - that the war will continue as long as it takes...well, Mr. Bush, that's assuming you are elected next time round...and if the conflict is still going on, by election time next year, don't count on that happening. In fact, the constant lying, mis-direction, and propaganda is starting to take its toll...we will see how it looks, at the end of this month...I suspect that if the conflict is still raging by the end of this month, real concerns will start to be raised...

WS, is this incredible or what? We are rolling into Baghdad already. That's it, I'm just sitting back and seeing how this ends up. Trying to predict events is futile it seems. The fact that we are actually *in* the city and considering the relatively low casualties for civilians and our troops is unprecedented... so far. Let's just hope and pray this really is going to end in a whimper so we can move on to rebuilding Iraq. And this is where things will get extraordinarily difficult in order to do it "right". I am specifically thinking about mobrul's dire prediction of installing another thug. I must say, I don't see it going that far but I do see it not going far enough in the other direction, namely an provisional government run by Iraqis and not the US military.

ok i am putting a few things together regards my time in N.Ireland and CQB (close quarters combat) i will post it tomorrow, who knows what will happen in the mean tinme tonight, but trust me if it goes house to house street to street, you better have strong stomachs, its gonna get real bloody,high casualties, and civilian casual;ties will rise and so will friendly fire incidents,this is the dirty messy end of war...

Good to see you around, tomeaglescz. I really look forward to that. I am very eager to here what you and WS and any other veterans have to offer to help us civilians better understand the horrors of war.

Bugs: Sorry I didn't get back sooner I've been a little occupied. I've never heard of the guy or his radio station (LBC) so I can't comment really.

and on this:

quote:

---

WS, is this incredible or what? We are rolling into Baghdad already. That's it, I'm just sitting back and seeing how this ends up.

---

I am glad to see things moving into the end game here but taking of Baghdad will not be the end (and as Tom has said urban warfare is brutal - as Northern Ireland has taught us, and him esp.):

1. There will be a low level war with pockets of Saddam lolayists for a long time.

2. This controversial interim Iraqi government will cause all sorts of problems.

3. Watch where the oil money goes. Although Bush has said the moeny will stay with the Iraqis watch it disappear to the US via: reconstruction, direct repayments for the war and privatisation of the oil industry.

4. They are already gearing themselves up for the next war. I was wondering what would happen - if it would be a rolling war or there would be a year or so pause but it looks like it might just keep rolling. Odds on favourite for finding a large Coalition boot in their rear appears to be Syria (although Iran also gets a good emntion so don't rule them out) thanks to (with a nod to Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys) I'll call 'The Case of the Invisible Infrared Goggles':
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925240,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,926157,00.html

I think this is scarily inevitable and (as mentioned a while back all part of one plan made years ago).

the main question is when will the UK back out and the international community actually make a stand? It does appear that the UK (which has always had a more pro-Arab policy, although any good will we have built up is being osed away rapidly) is rapidly backing away from this issue:
www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,928302,00.html

although that might be partly because they are possibly British nightvision goggles:
www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,930977,00.html

but it seems clear that this 'diversion' of goods has been known about for years.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hmmm...end game, it is not (good points, Emps). However, the change in tactics (Overwelming Force) really was the way to go...look what it has accomplished. As for American casualties...well, we will have to wait, until they release the real figures...I at least hope, that people are starting to wake up to Rumsfeld (and Mr. Bush)...ignoring the advice of the Generals (and Veterans), and sacrificing unnedded American lives in a futile effort (that 'blitz' strategy) was really stupid, and pointless. Just an example, of when unexperienced, arrogant idealists think they can wage wars. Also, your friend Bugs (or that guy on the radio, whatever) was wrong...overwelming force works.

Let's hope that it all ends soon, and with as little blood lost as possible. I, too, shudder at the coming house-to-house fighting...I hope it is swift, and takes little toll on our troops, and the civilians...

I do wonder, how long it will really take to complete the Iraq operation...remember, Afghanistan is still going on...

So Bugs, you are celebrating too soon...it's just half-time, so to speak. We are storming the beaches of Normandy, not entering Berlin...

Though I am curious to see what type of effect Saddams death will have on the war.

I also hope that the international community puts down it's squabbles and decides to help the Iraqi people...for they are the real victims here.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-07-2003).]

The imperial elite guard was seen on a road northwest of Bagdad with plenty tanks and artillery. I guess they will enter the war when the American will think they own Bagdad... Man, why does men like so much the blood lust ?

Anyway I agree with Webshaman, I would like to see this war end as quickly as possible.

As we have all noticed the news has been awfully contradictory and this has had a big impact the stock markets. So where do they go for what migh pass as the truth (or a more factually correct version)? Russian army spys.

This article goes into the issue:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,931084,00.html

and it appears that it is easier to get hold of this information than you'd think as the GRU (the army intelligence) post daily reports here:
www.iraqwar.ru./?userlang=en

As opposed to what the article says it is in English but the site it points to for the translations is also worth nosing through too:
www.aeronautics.ru

[edit: And they have more information on the GRU:
www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news072.htm

as well as suff on #cough# anti-gravity - but as large aeonautics companies are looking into this kind of thing.....]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And the above has some interesting reports on the issue of Syria:
www.iraqwar.ru./iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2084&lang=en

quote:

---

"Syria has become the only airway passage for Saddam. They have transferred night vision equipment and also parts for the Republican Guards' T-72 tanks," Maj Gen Aharon Zeevi, head of the Israel Defence Force Military Intelligence branch (AMAN), told the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot on 3 April.

---

quote:

---

Israeli intelligence sources have suggested that Iraq might also be hiding banned surface-to-surface missiles and chemical components in Syria. On 31 March AMAN head of research Brig Gen Yossi Kuperwasser informed the Israeli parliament's Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee that there is evidence to support the latter claim.

---

It sounds like the Israelis are really going to push for this hunt for WMD and it is setting the Coalition up with excuses for why so little was found. However, this report suggests early finds of a Sarin-like substance:
www.iraqwar.ru./iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2063&lang=en

although this earlier report suggests little had been found up until them:
www.iraqwar.ru./iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2026&lang=en

Most of these reports are culled from other sources (Reuters, Janes, BBC, etc.) and I presume the Russian intelligence reports are the ones being translated on Venik's main page (if so it sounds like things aren't all roses at the airport).

[edit: and it looks like its not just the oil people are after:
www.iraqwar.ru./iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2033&lang=en

this queing up of people to pillage a country (the source of civilisation as we know it - a country filled with priceless anyquities which are a priceless resource which over the years will help the Iraqi people bring in more tourists to help their country recover) really disgusts me]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well Emps, I think Mr. Bush set up the Syria-Iraq connection when he said that WMD had been all moved to Syria...so that may be the next move planned...and when one thinks that Isreal has developed their new tank to fight Syria...1 plus 1, right? But we'll have to wait on that one...at least, until this one is declared 'over', anyway...

And yeah, I've been scrounging around the intel from Russia, as well...for the casualty reports (which they rate as much, much higher than the offical reports). Still, it's hard to confirm. One thing of interest - actual official counts are 3-4 days old, they only count from what the medical people have already worked...according to Russian intel.

I guess the main spectre of WMD has been largely removed...no reports of them being used, as of yet. Now that US troops are actually in Baghdad, it's a bit to late for their use, really. Hard to deliver such agents in that confined space. Yes, there is that report on this serin stuff, but it was unused, and who knows how it actually got there...food for thought, really. No, the WMD issue seems to have fallen off the face of the earth...and no real word from anyone on that front...at the moment, I think it's 'get Saddam' fever...and the large questions like those concerning WMD...well, we will see, won't we? Of course, they could have been sent into Iran...hehe...but no-one would probably believe that...hmmm...maybe Saudia Arabia? Maybe they were all given to Bin Laden? North Korea? On ships circling somewhere in the Indian ocean? I guess Syria makes more 'sense'...

Yes, stay tuned for 'The missing WMD'...

from foxnews.com (second section of the article):

quote:

---

U.S. Marines also crossed the Tigris River east of the city despite heavy damage to bridges from booby traps and heavy fighting.

Meanwhile, U.S. biological and chemical weapons experts believe they may have found an Iraqi storage site for weapons of mass destruction, a U.S. officer told Reuters.

"Our detectors have indicated something," Major Ros Coffman, a public affairs officer with the U.S. 3rd Infantry, said of the site just south of Hindiyah. "We're talking about finding a site of possible WMD storage. This is an initial report, but it could be a smoking gun."

U.S. forces near Baghdad found around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with chemical weapons, National Public Radio reported.

The rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire," NPR said, attributing the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division.

Senior defense officials told Fox News that an exploration team is at the site now and there may in fact be something substantial there.

---

[This message has been edited by Fig (edited 04-07-2003).]

Well Fig, I have seen the reports (I guess we all have had information overload on them by now, it seems to be everywhere at once, go figure).

Some things to consider - first of all, that lays three, almost four days behind us now (yep, they discovered those two places that long ago). That's a lot of time, to test stuff...where are the results of that testing? I'm absolutely certain, that if they had certain proof, it'd be all over the media, and 'in your face' everywhere...second, it seems it's more of that serin stuff (at least, they hinted at that...could be just agriculture pesticides, as well). They said they tested for something else, that it might be a type of nerve gas...well, we will have to wait and see. Also, it didn't seem like it was really in 'deliverable' form, whatever it is...and certainly not already packed in the delivery systems (now that would be a dead give-away). No word on biological agents...

However, I'm certainly no expert on ABC type stuff (just the normal training). I really don't know how long the testing process is. Anyone?

So do you think that recent hit really got him and his sons? How in the world will they find evidence even if they were in that building?

WS, Captain Dye didn't say that the Powell Doctrine didn't work. He just said that it was not appropriate for densely populated areas like Baghdad where the civilian casualties would be enormous and unacceptable.

And, no, I'm not celebrating just yet but I am extremely pleased at the progress. This is precisely the kind of time table that was predicted (2-4 weeks) and the kind of things that we needed to happen for this war to be a success. Now the looong task of rebuilding will soon begin. That is where it becomes extremely difficult and it remains to be seen if Iraq is ready for democratization.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-08-2003).]

Bugs, this information is a bit more accurate

quote:

---

The total time for the operation against Iraq is estimated by the US military planners to run between 15 and 21 days.
According to Col. Gen. Rukshin it is unlikely that the first phase of the US attack will be able to achieve its goals and destroy most of the main Iraqi forces. This stage of the operation is likely to take between three week and one-and-a-half months. During that time the US command will put an emphasis on the destruction of Iraq's top political and military leadership, including Saddam Hussein. For this purpose the US plans to use high-power aviation bombs capable of penetrating reinforced underground facilities at great depth. Additionally, for the first time the US plans to use tactical airborne troops and special forces against Iraq's military and political command sites.

GOU GSh finds it possible that the military campaign against Iraq will be considerably more difficult than expected by the US military planners. The US troops may encounter determined resistance from the Iraqi forces, which may lead to the slow down and even complete halt of the attack and will force the US to resume the mass bombing campaign. This will inevitably prolong the war into the 2-3-month timeframe and possibly longer.

--aeronautics.ru - War in Iraq - GRU's take on things

---

Also, Russian intelligence reports the found 'chemicals' to be, in fact, pesticides...very interesting. And the War has past the 1 month phase...going slowly towards the 5 week phase. In other words, it is taking longer than planned.

On another front - it does seem to look like foreign TV and reporters are being targeted...Al Jazzara and Dubya (or whatever) both got hit hard, and then there is this

quote:

---

Later, the Palestine Hotel, the base for most foreign correspondents covering the war in the Iraqi capital, was struck by what was believed to be tank fire.

In London, Reuters news agency spokeswoman Susan Allsopp said four Reuters staff were injured in the blast - a reporter, a photographer, a cameraman and a technician. The extent of their injuries was not clear, and they were taken to hospital.

--ICWales

---

Hmmm...accidents? Somehow, I don't think so. What is really strange is, that I tried to find the story of that Palestine Hotel in the net (it was on Google, but the story had been pulled, strange), however, it was damned hard to find anything (almost all had been pulled). I find that...disturbing. So, we have three different news agencies that were hit, and in a relatively short time-span. Coincidence? Maybe...but if I was commanding troops in house-to-house combat, I'd want to make damned sure, that no information was getting out, that was...unfavorable. Especially considering reports of civilians being gunned down...or the actual fighting. And absolutely no video, of course.

Ok, a couple of hours later, it's all over the place...reports coming in from every direction, about the attack on the Palastinian Hotel. Looks like the Military lost, on this one.

It would also seem like there must be a hell of a battle taking place in Baghdad right now...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-08-2003).]

Now I feel like a proper silly billy - it appears (at least according to James Woolsey the former director of the CIA) that not only are we in the early stages of a World War but we missed one and this is actually World War IV

Its in today's Guardian but they don't seem to have a copy online but see and indirect mention:
www.theinquirer.net/?article=8783

see also:
www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/

Hmmmm these are older articles:
www.hallindseyoracle.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=1468
www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4718

What worries me is this isn't some extreme conspiracy theorising or wild talk by some right wing nut who has no influence over policy - Woolsey is one of the people who may have a role in rebuilding post-war Iraq.

I do think its ironic that Woolsey talks so much about extending democracy when the US has gone out if its way to disrupt democracies when they happened to be voting for the wrong people.

So one question to those who have been more in favour of this war than myself (and pos. WS): Is extending this war to Syria then Iran then Saudi Arabia acceptable for you?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Interesting question...and I'm just not sure, if 'acceptable' is the right word, here. Maybe 'sane' would be better...

I see no good thing coming out of a full-scale war in the region...in that, I mean to move from country to country, one war after another...I'm very sure that the international community will not support it...meaning it will have to be done alone. Somewhere along the line, people (and countries) are going to wake-up, and really start doing something about it...my $.02 on the subject.

Here's some interesting thoughts on this -

quote:

---

Two top United States Diplomats have resigned from their posts, saying they cannot support the Bush Administration's plans for war. In his resignation letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, John Brady Kiesling, a former U.S. diplomat based in Athens, Greece, said the Bush Administration was involved in, and I quote, "a systematic distortion of intelligence and a systematic manipulation of public opinion not seen since the days of Vietnam."


Kiesling dedicated 20 years of his life to diplomacy and civil debate. He sent his resignation letter to Secretary Powell on February 27. Friday, March 7, was his last day in the Foreign Service.


Another veteran Diplomat, John Brown, joined Kiesling just three days ago. Brown was a senior member of the Foreign Service who also served in the State Department for more than 20 years. He was stationed primarily in Eastern Europe and most recently in Moscow.


In Brown's letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, he said he agreed with John Brady Kiesling. Brown wrote, "The president's disregard for views in other nations borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy is giving birth to an anti-American century."

---

quote:

---

JBK: I'm kind of frightened by the missionary zeal that's going into this. The original American missionaries to the Middle East in the 19th century recognized that they would not be able to convert anyone from Islam to Christianity. So they settled for simply giving people a good education. And that was very useful. It played an enormous role in the economic and political development of the Middle East. Now we seem to think that we can go in and convert people, not necessarily to Christianity, but to a whole different Western ideology. It has not worked, it will not work. The idea that we first take care of Iraq, and then we will civilize Iran, and then we will civilize Syria and then we will civilize everybody else – it's insane. But, there are people who genuinely seem to believe it, and all I can think of is, they are hopeful for the Apocalypse.

---

quote:

---

JB: I just hope that my resignation will underscore the fact that I have extremely strong reservations about our policy, and to get back to the earlier question that Brady answered, a policy that really is based on arrogance, on the notion that we can recreate the world, recreate regions, first by using force. And I think force should be used at the very, very last moment ... if ever ... not to use force ... avoid using it as much as possible. So my concern at this point is really the believing that we, in a sense, are the masters of the universe. I think that's terribly dangerous and that's not of the American spirit.

---

More on this Dissenting Diplomats

So yes, I think the word 'sane' (or insane) fits much better in your question, Emps.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-09-2003).]

WS: Thanks for that stuff - very interesting.

I'm not sure sane/insane is quite the right term

There are certain members of the US administration who are frighetningly sane and focused - I'm sure under normal circumstances such a plan would be described as insane (due to the huge scope and the audacity) but they are some of the few people on the planet with the power and will to carry it through. I'm sure in their minds they see it along the lines of a short sharp shock to remove these undemocratic Arabic states will be worth it in the long run. During WWIII the US administrations intervention in other countries had to be more covert (due to the presence of another super power) but this was an awfully drawn out and costly affair and now they can pretty much do what they want it must seem easier to grasp the nettle and get it over with quickly.

Also when we go to war we tend to 'support our boys' more and opinion swings to support the war so it makes sense to keep the war rolling so we don't have any pause where we can criticise things properly without appearing unpatriotic.

I'm just unsure how they can be stopped. There will always be a way to create an arguement for invading another country (and I'm sure it could be done for any country if you put your mind to it) which will rope in a Coalition of the Gullible although they will start to fade away. As long as the electorate supports them then they'll just keep going. They were quite happy to do this without the UK but they stuck around long enough to drag them on board (most other members of the Coalition, except for Oz, are pretty minor participants already) but they appeared not to be bothered either way.

What can the rest of the world do? Bring sanctions against the US? Go to war? Thats not going to happen.

The disapproval of the UN doesn't seem to worry them and their ripping up of virtually every treaty of the last 50 years has already demonstrated what they think of international cooperation.

The only way I can see things changing is through the electorate and that is only going to happen if:

1. The body bags start flooding home - which isn't likely and isn't something I want to hope for.

2. People wake up and smell the coffee - the truth is out there but you can lead a horse to water (and throw in some other cliches).........

It does feel like one of those world record breaking domino setups where it is possible to get an idea of the greater pattern but it won't all be clear until all of the dominos have fallen and I'm afraid the first dominos started falling years ago (which is why they have been so blatant in giving us glimpses of the pattern) and everything is progressing with a kind of scary inevitability. Is the only hope that somewhere a few dominos have been set up wrong and the whole plan will get derailed? I suppose my only hope is that I'm wrong, that there isn't some greater scheme, that hostilities will end now and the Middle East will get back to normal. We'll see.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ok...been thinking on other things, but let's go down this path for awhile.

There are really two things to consider here - the Political ramifications, and the Military ramifications. I'll start with the military one first.

From a Military point of view, no time in mankind's history was a military better prepared for doing a bit of world beating. The rough edges have been polished, the troops have been 'bloodied', and are now veterans, the command has got into gear, communications have been optimized...and the weaponry works. In short - from a military perspective, it's not only possible, but merely a question of 'May we?'

So, that leaves the Political question. And here is where the main problem lies. You said 'What can the rest of the world do? Bring sanctions against the US? Go to war? Thats not going to happen.' Well, if it doesn't, then there is nothing that will stop it. Point is, something must be done, other countries really do need to wake up, and start taking this 'fantasy scenario' a bit more seriously. However, it could be that you are right, that most (esp. Europe) seems to think it is unthinkable. But we have seen this type of mentality before, as I recall. So, either something will happen, and pressure will increase, or it will continue.

Now, I do believe that the Bush Administration has the will to carry such a thing out. Of that, I have no doubt. I am also certain, that they are not at all worried, or concerned, about possible consequences to doing it. The real question is, whether or not the Bush administration wants to, or not. And I am sure, that in the coming months, we will see if this is indeed the case. I highly suspect, that if one more war is started in the region, that that will be the 'key evidence' that such a plan really is being followed, especially if it is Syria. Of course, Iran also would stand high on any list, I believe. But there are also 'signs' that maybe North Korea is next...I've heard tantalizing 'rumors' that American forces are to be 'moved around' or removed, from South Korea altogether...which may be an attempt to provoke North Korea into invading South Korea...which, of course, would then be a mighty incentive to deal with North Korea once and for all.

Should any of the above scenarios take place (esp. in the Middle-East), then I must say, that sadly, there is really nothing that could be done to stop it - total control over Oil means holding the rest of the world's economies hostage, when it comes down to it (and I'm absolutely sure that the Bush administration wouldn't hesitate to do it). Remember, WWI and WWII hotly contested the region for the natural resource, oil. War machines need lots of it, and so do most modern economies.

I'm also interested in who the 'bad guy' is going to be now, now that Saddam has been 'dealt' with. After all, to keep such a thing rolling, one needs to give the public a face that it can spit on, and really 'love' to hate. Maybe Bin Laden? It would be pretty easy to 'sell' that he is in Syria, or Iran...so, make the demand of handing him over from the said country (which couldn't comply, obviously), and then let them have it. Just keep the public comfortable, and blindly hating and following...and as long as the Networks play along, it's as easy as pie.

Of course, one little trip stone is the coming election...so, in order to accomplish all this, something there will have to be done - you cannot base such a plan on the whim of the voters, after all...too much risk. And because there is really not enough time to take out all these other lands before the election, yes, I believe that something will happen (if this plan is being carried out, that is). Of course, Syria and Iran could be eliminated rather quickly, now that the troops are already in place (they are neighbors of Iraq, after all, and I'm sure that Isreal would be more than happy to help out with Syria, and probably also Iran). That would leave just North Korea, and maybe China...if China is even on the list (it should be, but who knows?). The build up for North Korea would take a bit longer, of course...unless they were enticed into attacking South Korea first. Then you could easily gather an international coalition for that...and a build-up would then be just a matter of logistics. So, under ideal conditions, and with a bit of luck, all this could be accomplished before election time...if everything went well (meaning - quickly). I doubt that Iran and Syria will be serious opponents on the battlefield - especially considering what has happened in Iraq, and the fact that Overwhelming force is a really good strategy (that no-one seems to have a defense for, at this time). North Korea could be a bit different...but with a big enough coalition...who knows?

Since one could describe Iraq as a military 'success', that leads to the open question, 'Why not_____?' (fill in blank with favorite bad guy land).

The other thing (If I was really considering doing the plan) that I would make sure of, is that the UN was busy dealing with the 'fall-out' of the wars I had behind me - get the UN busy with reconstruction, and aid, etc...which would first free my troops up (and money) to do the next job, as well as providing a convinient 'smoke-screen' covering my next actions...as the UN bickers and argues about who is to do what where and which agency, I can go ahead with my plans, confident that the UN will be unable to process everything at once (the weaknesses of a democracy lie in the time it takes to pass resolutions, and voting). However, one could not go through the UN Security Coucil anyway (because the US would veto it, of course), so...any 'resolution' would be harmless, anyway.

In fact, I think this is really the biggest weakness that the Iraq conflict has shown - that the UN is really powerless, when it comes to one of the permanent security council members.

Well, we will see. As I said, should there be another conflict started in the area, then we will know.

There is once other thing to consider - before this conflict, I really didn't think (too idealistic, I guess, even after all that I have experienced) that the American people would go along with such a thing. However, it has become apparent, that as long as the sons and daughters of the middle class and the wealthy are not coming home in body bags (and the Media plays along) that it will be supported . I guess this is the real lesson to be learned from Vietnam. That, combined with the fears from 9/11 (just be sure to 'pop' that out there ever so often), and offer some juicy 'advantages' to certain companies and interest groups, and one can count on the masses to follow (and what are they going to do if they don't? Protest? And who is going to report on these protests?).

Of course, somehwere along the line, the economic situation is going to raise it's ugly head, but I'm sure that dealing with that (in the short term) wouldn't be all that difficult.


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-09-2003).]

Back to normal? Normal? I just don't get it, Emps. I am quite frankly at a loss for words because you speak as though we were days away from the Apocalypse. Why are you so down about all of this? You said that you had no love for Hussein but you want the Middle East to be back to "normal". What exactly does that mean?

I will address your other question soon, but I just couldn't sit by any longer without asking you this.

WS: I don't think we can believe the scale of the plan and I think most of us would rather tell oursleves that it isn't happening - and there is still time for them to back down.

I really doubt the world will try war or sanctions - it is a little difficult to do as the US is the only superpower and an the engine of global economy. As well as still being oe of the Good Guys.

Syria seems the likely next target as it is the only remaining Ba'Athist party ruled country and is always in disupute with Israel about the Golan Heights, etc. However, alhough Iraq was a much more powerful nation they have been bombed into oblivion over the last decade and had very little left. Syria might be another matter entirely - it doesn't stand a chance but it could put up a better defence.

Yes China is on the list of the extreme elements in the administration (and related think tanks) but that would truly be insane but I could see it stemming from Chinese interference in NK. I would imagine Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would have to go first.

On a side note I just saw them drag down the statue of Saddam in central Baghdad - a very symbolic moment. They had the US flag over his head like a hood and a hain around his neck like a noose. The Pro_US Iraqi commentator said the use of the US flag filled hi with digust and the commentator on the ground said the people couldn't believe how insensitive it was (they whipped it off quickly once they realised the crowd wasn't very happy).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Bugs: Normal as in not on the brink of going up in flames.

And yes I do have a tendency to get all worried and Apocalyptic - that way when things turn out much better than I think its a good thing.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, Bugs, maybe he is worried that the US really is planning on doing the Pax Americana plan...if I wasn't American, I'd be damned worried about that right now...hell, I am American, and it does tend to creep under my skin...

However, maybe he has other reasons...I would like to hear them, irregardless, as well.

WS: I'm crapping myself as a concerned citizen of the world

I'm not sure I have too many other reasons (that I'd be prepared to go into).

In some ways I'm not the one who is talking in a Apocalyptic way - the links we dropped in on the subject of Pax Americana show that it is the US administration and closely linked think tanks that are discussing things in such a manner using terms like 'total war', 'creative destruction' and WWIV.

In fact at a recent meeting where Woolsey expounded on WWIV the only arguement seemed to be if we were in the first stages of WWIII or WWIV:
www.spacewar.com/2003/030406200547.2w47gtmr.html

Most Arabs consider this victory another slap in the face for their people and it is brewing considerable resentment. Most commentators I've heard have said that the war with Iraq won't have made the War Against Terror easier and that it has probably just made matters worse.

Its that kind of thing that is making me scared - on one side is the US getting more belligerent and on the other the Arab peoples becoming more and more outspoken and angry.

I'll be happy if things fizzle out but as WS has said we'll have to wait and see,

And yes I do believe Saddam to be a thoroughly unpleasant individual who deserved to be toppled but I don't approve of the way things have been done and this war could easily have reprecussions for decades.

At the moment I'm happy to see the Iraqi people becoming free and I'm glad that none of the WMD have been used against Coalition forces (or the Iraqi people).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, I am going to take it as consolation that you are happy that they're happy The pictures and video of euphoric Iraqis definitely carries a certain amount of vindication with it. I am not ashamed to admit that I am extremely thrilled to see their reaction now that they know he's gone. There is a time, a pause, for some celebration because this is truly a historic moment.

I am going to do my best to limit my "I told you so" childish thoughts and occasional jabs and move on to the real challenge. We must not have just another thug installed. That would be a disaster and I will condemn that with the core of my being should that be the case.

The larger issue is going to be whether or not democratization is possible there at this point in their history. I seriously hope that it is and I seriously hope that this will mark the beginning of more reform in the Middle East. How many times has the US been criticized by the left for *not* opposing terrible regimes? So presumabely, once we start opposing them the criticism may shift to methods? I suppose that would only be appropriate since our society is based on both sides being presented toward a solution.

I'm blathering now. Time to move on to next topic.

So what are you guys calling people like me now? Is the new term NeoCon? So what shall I call y'all? Progressives? LOL!!!

It's interesting how the labels are all getting a make over lately.

Emps, I found the complete transcript of a teach-in at the University of California Los Angeles where several of these so called "neocons" spoke. http://www.avot.org/stories/storyReader$141

Actually, on my site I've included links to an organization that best defines my views on politics both foreign and domestic.
http://www.empoweramerica.org/

and a couple of sister sites:
http://www.empower.org/ http://www.avot.org/

I hope this doesn't terrify you or anything like that