The two Democrat leaders in Congress, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, served; __________________ Someone said these two democrats served. Please tell me on what front line, actual combat positions, they did operate from? Let's not get too enticed about the so-called military experience governing judgement. Seems to me I remember that Daschle authored Clinton's resolution on the Kosovo maneuver. I can't find where he ever, personally, publicly, stated "I think we need to go to war here and now!" Always the endorsement was for "the president's opinion giving the president full authority to commit the country should he deem it necessary." That way there is no political spill-over should things not pan out the way they were supposed to. And Gephardt, not to miss a photo op, can be seen in many pictures touting the battle in Democratic Party (no personal endorsement or objection) unity. Go back and check the transcripts. The language is generally, "I SUPPORT the presidents' decision on this." Never was it publicly stated as, "I think we need to do this because I believe it is the thing to do." Again he was always being sure to allow for politically calculated wiggle room in the event he needed to call it "President Clinton's decision." As for some of the other noted naysayers, let's look at how much press time, ink, television/radio time they were getting before the fact. Don't think they don't still crave the "guy-in-the-know" status in Washington. Prior to this whole affair, I don't think many (if any) of their phones were ringing for that hot piece of info from the inside. Yeah, we all know how some of the current game works too. You know, the "I'm still connected because I have friends and contacts there who will talk to me even though I am not in the loop" crowd. Some of the supposed knowledgeable types that we are now quoting have been away for two or more years. I would not expect them to be on the cutting edge of the info circles. At best, they can ONLY surmise what they would be advising about. And if it ain't what they are hearing now, they become the true default analysts who KNOW what we need to do. Before we put a political spin on the motivations here, let's go back to what we know to be a fact. In other words, to really understand the controlling animals here, let's follow the money (or the control thereof)!
In your post you attached a post: Originally posted by skerbitz That post implied that most of the folks who were hawking war, avoided service. I would contend that the two Democratic parties that were mentioned as having served, may have done so from a desk somewhere well out of harms way also. So the intended appearance of having been officially able to understand the need (or not) for war from an experienced point of view, may not be totally accurate. There are many folks from both sides of the political aisle who have served from the desk if you will. This makes them no more, or less, an authority on whether or not the action is justified. Neither of these individuals has any military strategy implementation experience. So I don't really value their advice as a determining factor as to whether or not the forces should be deployed. Now with that said, I do not think that the president has the battle experience that I would use to determine a field deployment strategy either. But I do trust that HE has access to the appropriate individuals that HE feels can give HIM the insight for HIS decision to either deploy or not. I would also trust that HE has analyzed the facts and determined that this is the best course of action available. While I would expect him to look into the global responsibilities of such a decision, I also would expect him to realize that he is President of America and that it is her best interest that is paramount in his responsibilities. Along with the acceptance of the responsibilities of the office come my understanding that it is HE, and HE alone, that is charged with the responsibility of such a decision and that HIS use of such power must be deliberate once HE determines its need to be brought to bear. I am tired of the many worldwide police actions that we have undertaken in the use of a "measured might" of the military. I am interested in the presidential use of the military as a force that once used, is revered and feared worldwide. There should be such a concern of America using such a force that only a true rival would even dare the contemplation of causing such an action. The mere fact that we, the American public, are expecting WAR to be waged by exact striking of weaponry down to the precise measurement of feet, that shows our lack of understanding of what war is about. Waging war is very simple, and painful. Conducting sanitized strikes to make the other side understand you are the technological winner is a joke. We must understand that we are at war with a culture that understands that war is not over until the other side no longer exists. We are fighting a peoples (terrorists) who do not lose wars. When the loss is imminent, they scurry into the night to hide and await a time when they can strike again. To win you must cause them to come out and say, "NO MORE!" That understanding of surrender must be no less than complete and unconditional. And at a cost of lives (on both sides), it can be achieved. To think that a war can be waged without the loss of life is not realistic. The goal of war is to make the other guy die for his cause, belief, country. To that end I would only say that should military deployment become the decision of any president, that total and complete victory be the outcome expected, and demanded, from the unified American populace. If America were to ever go into war with total domination at every level demanded by the homefront, with resounding echoes it will be achieved. Then not only would you would have an outcry from the world about the American barbarians of war, there would be a major decline in those willing to defy such a force and cause its rise again. There is a perception in many third world countries that America is soft. They actually put merit in the belief that if they can present an argument that can cause debate, unity will decline, and America becomes paralyzed. I believe it is only at the public expression of minority views level, that they are POSSIBLY correct.
I don't think it is so much that they view us as being "soft" -- rather, they simply dislike us to an extreme. The United States really has two options. Either we go along with this "UN weapons inspection" and get screwed around like we did last time, or we just say to hell with foreign relations and take matters completely into our own hands. Even the Labor Party is divided about Tony Blair's support for U.S. military action. Germany has made its views very clear as well -- they don't think military action is warranted. Now, we have Russia and France who are strongly opposed to military action due to a lack of evidence. If we attack Iraq, we're going to lose a lot support from allies. This, in my opinion, is all a political mistake on our part. If Bush really wanted Saddam out, he would have acted against Iraq shortly after the September 11'th attacks. We could have easily played off the worldwide sympathy at that time and used any number of sneaky CIA tricks to "frame" Iraq for whatever reason -- even if the evidence was not there. However, we just can't start a war with Iraq without solid evidence that they are indeed a threat. Evidence like that needs to be outright obvious and made public -- the government can't work in secrecy about this and, at the same time, expect the US public to just "go along" with the military action. Even though a majority of US citizens want military action, I don't think a lot of them have seriously considered the ramifications of what would happen if the United States STARTED a war with another country without solid evidence to back it up. Even if they are building weapons, that still does not give us a right to attack them. They are under UN sanctions and regulations and must be dealed with according to an agreement among nations that make up the UN. Attacking Iraq may be the right thing to do, but we cannot start a war based merely on conjecture. If we are wrong, the implications down the road are huge. We need to work with foreign countries and respect THEIR views. Most of the world already views this country (The United States) as an overbearing elite worldwide police force. We're not winning brownie points by going in gung-ho despite opposition from other countries. We need to worry about our national security, but we also have to weigh in the concerns of other nations as well. I don't like Saddam either, but a power vacuum isn't going to solve any problems for the long-term. It is just going to create short-term "band-aid" solutions to a wound that requires stitches.
Canyonman you are correct that the President should and does have military advisors. I am just concerned now that the least hawkish member of his cabinet (visible member) is Powell. Why do you think this is? Aphie is also correct, both about a power vacuum, and about the need for a clear and present danger to justify an attack. As some of you know from a previous thread, I resisted the draft during the Viet Nam era. (Back when it was still two words). I ended up going. Not to Vietnam, but to the general area. There was conflict all over southeast asia at the time, and though we had no "official business" being there, we were. I was. I was captured. I was imprisoned, and I was shot escaping. Had I been killed it would have been for nothing. It saddens me so that we are now contemplating a war in which our kids can and will die for nothing. The Iraqi army is just a bunch of kids too for the most part. They and the citizens are not our enemies. Saddam is our enemy. We need to find a way short of war to not only oust him, but to oust him in a way that will not have the collateral effect of raising the level of hatred towards the US in the arab world. I wish I knew a simple solution. There obviously has not yet been one devised yet. But in todays world, war, even with all the technology available to us, is more a chess game than ever. It is about strategy and thinking 10 moves ahead. Going in, guns blazing, is not 21st century warfare. It is going to take more thought than firepower to win in Iraq and in the war on terrorism. We all know that the terrorists use cowardice as a strategy. Strike, run, hide. Hide among the noncombatants. Iraq has used this strategy as well on a larger scale. The Palestinians on a scale of their own. Apparently the arab world doesn't play by the rules of "civilized war" (how is that for an oxymoron?). What we need is to stop spending so many tax dollars on the development of obsolete weapons systems, and put the money into our intelligence resources. It is shameful that a country the size of Israel can have a better and more effective intelligence and security system than we. It is time to meet the present and be prepared for the future.
Aren't these two points related? and isn't that exactly the problem - that there is no unified lust for Iraqi blood outside of those advising the President, there are no screams for war from the American or international population? And, evidently, no legitimate justification. If there were, they (the administration hawks) wouldn't have to try so hard to SELL it, to convince people of a need to destroy, and to destroy right now?
(writer's note: Added [Bush] & [The World] to his quote) canyonman00: I have respect for your support and defense of others on this board when it comes to their trading platforms. But as far as your judgement on world affairs, you'd be more comfortable in a dictatorship. Last time I checked, we lived in a Republic with a President, House, and Senate. You are preaching absolute power and that scares me to death. Iraq is not a threat to us militarily or economically. Currently, they are not a political threat, nor are any of the "TERRORISTS!" linked to Iraq. If we take them on unilaterally and they become martyrs against us, think of the long-term consequences. Then they will be a great political threat. And, if we act alone, and the world looks down upon us as bullies, to whom do we look to when our REAL darkest hour comes. Unilateral action will promote terrorism, not prevent it.
Josh: I used to believe that, too, evil media. I was an engineering major and my buddy was a journalism major. He claimed that my cynicism was unfounded because a journalist could make a bigger story by uncovering a slick slime-ball than the slime-ball could make by promoting sound bites and being slick. Isn't that still a part of the media's check and balance system? Or am I living in the past? Or did the past ever exist?
Thanks, rs7--I'm a terrible typist--thanks for stating so eloquently what I believe. There's no long-term thought going on here with our current Administration.
I say the following: let the inspectors in, let em do their job... if Saddam starts giving em grief then, and ONLY then, should a military response be considered... there is absolutely no need to prevent the return of the inspectors... Saddam knows he is finished should he prevaricate again... the USA will have every opportunity to LEGALLY attack Iraq (with the backing and blessing of the International Community) IF Saddam should screw the inspectors around... if the USA illegally attacks Iraq without giving the inspectors a chance, the USA will be the bad guy, NOT Saddam...