as much as i disagree with you, at least you have the decency to not veil your beliefs in "democracy" rhetoric.
Why would we send in units that are still operating in Afghanistan? We need to focus on one spot and not spread ourselves to thin. Invading Iraq is stupid, there's no direct threat against us what so ever. Perhaps we should use our Special Operations forces right where they are and lets focus and getting Al-Qaeda and whatever other groups are out there. There's no need for us to invade Iraq now.
The thing I find most odd is that the same people who screamed for us to intervene in the balkans with very little , and very flimsy evidence of supposed Serb attrocities.Are now against us from doing anything against Saddam and his cronies.Where There is a ton of evidence of this regime commiting attrocities against Assyrians, Kurds ,and Shiites. I understand some peoples sceptisim on the weapons end.No one has come up with any evidence.But what about the videos showing Iraqi gunships mowing down Assyrian women and children ? what about the evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurd civilians? what about the Videos of the Republican gaurd gunning down shiites in the street? In all honesty I will agree with the people who are bashing the administration over this.But for different reasons.They are drumming up support for this using all the wrong reasons.Lets quit focusing on the "supposed" weapons facilities or saddams "supposed" intentions.
So that four years from now, you won't be one of the ones posting "Why didn't the Bush administration do anything years ago if they knew Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire or develop nuclear capability, before he blew up that nuke in Tel Aviv?" This kills me. The same people who are complaining the loudest that Bush I should have had the troops roll into Baghdad in '91 (which I agree should have happened) are the ones who would have complained the loudest if we did. "But...but...but...you said we were liberating Kuwait! We've done that! Pull out now! Pull out now! War crimes! Human rights! We're interfering! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!" There was a large amount of discussion on what to do about Iraq prior to September 11. I'm sure that among the options were military scenarios.
I don't know if he has or not. But he has said that Iraq is dangerous, and developing chemical and biological weapons.
The reason the US stopped fighting after liberating Kuwait was because the Saudis (and other Arab allies, not to mention the Turks) didn't want Saddam toppled. It's not inconcievable that the reason that Saddam didn't put up more of a fight was because he new that the stakes were limited. This is significant for those who would draw a straight-line extrapolation between the ease of the initial Gulf War victory and the supposed ease of a war of conquest. Wars don't get fought in a vacuum. They are instruments of policy, and the debate over war in Iraq should revolve around whether toppling Saddam Hussein is good for the national interest, not whether Saddam's a jerk.
I'm sure Catholic Europe's 1000 year war on the Serbian people might have had something to do with it...
Don't expect the UK to be too able to help in any future war: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2166021.stm
This war is the best thing that could've happened for the Bush Admin. The problem is he's getting mixed opinions from his advisers. Ultra conservatives like his chief advisor from UT(Carl Rowe) favor an unprovoked invasion, while his Sec of State, Powel & leading conservatives in congress recognize there will be problems if the US invades Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq.html 1)who will replace Saddam a)we don't want an islamic fundamentalist like the sheites or curds b)we don't want another hussein clone, tariq haziz 2)OPEC members favor the admin 2 resolve the turmoil in the middle east 1st b4 we do anything in Iraq-which isn't actively threatening anyone anymore a)the bush admin erred when it called Sharon Perez a "leader in peace" b)the bush admin has been giving mixed siganls on it's stance w/ isreal, seeming pro on 1 side then criticizing military action the next. c)the admin hasn't expended enough effort to call in both sided to camp david 4 talks 3)UN regulation prohibit 1 country to take offensive action against another w/o adequate provocation & we might face,however unlikely, sanctions from the security council. Our veto I think would be nullified since the matter involves us. 4)considering Osama Bin laden's body guards have been in US custody for 6mo(likely to have died from liver failure) & the statements indicating Al Queda's ability to commit mass acts of terror has been depleted, I don't think the American public will support the prolonged occupation of a foreign land by our armed forces. So there you have it. Do I support a war that has given me unprecedented popularity, correct my father's mistake & bring increased security to the Americans or do I stall and wait for UN approval? Either way spells victory for the administration.
> The thing I find most odd is that the same people > who screamed for us to intervene in the balkans > with very little , and very flimsy evidence of > supposed Serb attrocities. The way we intervened in the Bosnian war was to deny the Bosnians any weapons, and then to create a cease fire just when it became clear that the Bosnians have turned the tide of the fight. If you were talking about Kosovo, it was the American government that was publicising all the supposed evidence. They did it because they needed a reason to invade the place and take it over so that we could put the Albanians back where they came from. We didn't care if Serbians wanted to kill Albanians, but when hundreds of thousands of refugees start flooding european nations, it can cause real problems. > Are now against us from doing anything against > Saddam and his cronies.Where There is a ton of > evidence of this regime commiting attrocities > against Assyrians, Kurds ,and Shiites. This did not bother us in the past. Reagan began a program of aiding Iraq after they gassed the Kurds. Bush had lots of Desert Storm equipment just sitting and watching while the Shiites and Kurds got slaughtered. What has changed now? The Kurdish threat to Turkey is diminished. The Shiites don't count. There is no evidence of Iran wanting to invade Iraq (or even being capable of doing same). I'll tell you what has changed. Our coup in Venezuela failed miserably, and it still isn't clear that Afghanistan is the yellow brick road to the Caspian.
Our equipment failures aren't as profound but the Apache helicopter sucks; its air filters were only good for a few hrs b4 they become to clogged w/ sand & the gun infront becomes jammed 2 easily(I presume the heat causes the ammunition to swell in the barrel). The same goes for the M1A Abrams tank. It's tread becomes worn after desert usage. To answer someones statement b4 reguarding our reserves kicking some republican guard butt, this was untrue, becuase the republican guard was withdrawn long b4 the 100hr ground war started. His divisions of elite guards are still loyal to him & will be unlikely to surrender to drone spies like his draftees. Furthermore, Saddam has divided his leadership among 6-8 regional headquarters, where the local officers have the ability to function independently. not that it would matter, but they don't ned to have direct communication from bahgdad(sp). There is a new philosophy in asymetrical warfare that promotes the "long war" tactic to string out a conflict until the aggressor gives up, ala Catholics v loyalist unionist & GB. The 101st is a paratrooper div that takes airfields. It has light armor only and cannot sustain prolonged aggression.
Hi everyone. Some perpective from someone who knows the area well. First of all if US is going to invade Iraq from the North and the South you can not infiltrate Iraq with tanks and other heavy armor from the North because it is a very mountainous region. You can progress towards Iraq from the North by only the means of infantry and air support. Sent the special forces in the first wave and get Turkey to agree on sending their best troops "Turkish SAS-SAT" teams in that first wave. Noone else can now that territory better than them. That might be hard to do so. And as a second wave send the regular infantry not the marines. I dont think they could do well in that region. From south send again the special forces as the first wave and send the marines the second. With heavy armor and air support. This can lead to Baghdad in max two months. Now of course there will be some resistance and there will be American lives lost. But US will definitely whoop Iraq's ass in the outcome. It can not be another Vietnam because there is no ground for guerilla fighting. You can also use the people in Iraq. There are a lot of people who do not like Saddam but can not make it outside the country. The ones that made it are already among us in US and in some other countries. Just hoping that this war will start around the fall of 2004 so when i am doing my military service as a Turkish SAS I will be there hehehe.
Not to get off topic or anything, but the 101st is not a paratrooper division. The 101st is Air Assault, their primary mode of transportation is the helicopter. The 101st are allowed to keep the Airborne tab because of their rich history. The 82nd and 173rd are still Airborne Divisions, as well as elements of the 18th Airborne Corps. Not to mention the other smaller division such as the 16th MP Brigade and 18th Aviation Brigade and such.
Driving into work this morning I heard a bit of an NPR report on Iraq. Seems Saddam, in response to US saber rattling, has invited UN weapons inspectors in for a conference. The wonk interviewed by NPR suggested that this activity was intended by Saddam to undercut support among other nations for any military action by US. (This just seems like more of the Saddam peep show he's been running to forestall inspections and retaliations simultaneously, all the while getting rich off the backs of Iraqis.) Second part: the general consensus was that any US intervention would be illegal. This would lead to no immediate tangible negative effects for US, because the only instrument for administering same is the UN security council, on which the US sits and has a veto. One guy did suggest that the potential cynicism engendered by the US flouting international law when it suits US purposes, all the while trying to hold other countries to it would eventually make real problems. My sense is that unless Bushapalooza plan to make "kill them all let God sort them out" their foreign policy MO until they lose the next election, then somebody with a little bit of brains needs to break into the groupthink that seems to be holding sway there.
That's because the whole world is a conspiracy to keep down the Serbs. It's only because of your greatness that you still endure.
Given how our allies felt about "going to Baghdad," Bush had no choice. I don't know how you got the idea that I think Bush erred in '91, except maybe that you have no form of argument except the straw man argument.
Thank you 4 the clarification on the 101st, but I met a gent 1mo ago that had an army officer civi on w/ the eagle crest on his arm. We talked about the 101 & 82nd div 4 a while & paratrooper training. He never made the distinction. But then again, i also met a fella who claimed to be one of the 1st seals in Nam. I asked about mining harbors & going thru sewers, he had no idea what i was talking about. Que sera. Everything I've ever seen on the 101 & 82 indicated the afore mentioned primary role, w/ light armor drops of apc's & bradly drops from G5 planes. Oh well, it wouldn't be the 1st time the pentagon was less than truthful. I'm glad for your optimism Turgoglu, but considering the heat buildling on the prime minister & his remaining cabinet, I don't see the people willing to support any cause that will aid a traditional rival, the Kurds.
The 101st is formed of three brigades plus Division Artillery, Division Support Command, the 101st Aviation Brigade, 159th Aviation Brigade, 101st Corps Support Group and several separate commands. If you look at their wings they have the air assualt wings instead of the airborne wings. There are 101st troopers who have both, but they 101st no long jumps out of planes. They hop around on helicpoters. The 101st redeployed back to Fort Campbell in January 1972 and since has become an Air Assault Infantry Brigade. I would recommend their webpage at... http://www.campbell.army.mil/division.htm
I got the idea from this: Saddam wouldn't retire gracefully, and that's why Bill Clinton beat my deddy. I'm comin' after you.
Thank's 4 the link, it was a real eye opener. All this is for naught as Saddam(the new Dessert Fox) has outsmarted the bushes again & looks to thwart his pending overthrow. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iraq-un-inspectors.html No war for you. Bush is running short of excuses and unless he plans another "remember the Maine" approach, I doubt anything will develope. The time to act has passed and emotions have dulled too much. Say what you will, but IMHO Gore or Senator McCain would've invaded Iraq shortly after the 2nd tower fell. We should've used tactical nuclear weapons on the Afhgan mountain range & sorted the bodies out later.