strike on iraq

How very true.


This shouldn't be about ideology, just about the merits.

And, unfortunately, we are the only ones in the world who see any merit, or, more concisely, Junior is the only who pretends he sees any merits, to distract from our massive problems at home, to get back at ole Saddam because the Bushes feel their name has been tarnished by Saddam, whatever.

Anyway, no other country in the world is falling for Juniors crap, and Tony is gonna have a real fight on his hands trying to get parliamentary support for this jackpot venture.


Will Congress blink again?

Col. David Hackworth

Defending America

History has repeatedly shown that the military solution is the least-desirable way to resolve conflict. Smart leaders know that "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting" – as Sun Tzu wrote years ago – and exhaust all other options before they unleash the dogs of war.

Instead, our president seems single-mindedly obsessed with attacking Iraq. For months, the Bush war team has been talking up taking out Saddam and sneaking so many war toys into places like Qatar and Kuwait that it's a wonder our desert launching pads haven't already sunk from the weight of our pre-positioned gear and ammo.

So far, the emir of Kuwait has been picking up the tab for the American muscle deployed outside of his palace that lets him sleep at night without worrying about Iraqi tanks roaring through his front gate, as they did in 1990. But probably a key reason President Bush is so keen on pressing Congress to sanction his unrelenting march to battle is because thousands more armored vehicles and tens of thousands of warriors are already on the move. Since it will soon be impossible to hide the buildup or cost, Bush clearly needs congressional consensus before the boys, bombs and bullets become the lead story on prime-time television.

Now it looks as though Congress is about to give Bush the green light for his shootout with Saddam rather than standing tall and insisting that U.N. weapons inspectors get another go at defanging the monster.

Almost 40 years ago, Congress kowtowed to another president from Texas and approved the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution – based on the repeated lies of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that Red patrol boats had attacked U.S. warships on a supposedly routine mission off North Vietnam, which the senior admiral in the Pacific had predicted months before would provoke exactly this type of response and result in an escalation of the Vietnam War. Only Sens. Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska stood tall and voted "nay." When Morse chillingly predicted we'd lose the war and LBJ would go down in flames, most members of Congress responded that they were patriotically backing the president in a time of crisis.

Before Congress blinks again, rubber-stamping one of the few wars in our country's history in which we've fired the first shot, the members should visit the Vietnam Memorial and read every name aloud on that black wall before blindly accepting their party machines' go-along-to-get-along directives. They should ask themselves: Do I want to be remembered as a William Fulbright – who pushed LBJ's bad resolution through the Senate, knowing all the while that he was repeating McNamara's spin – or as a Morse or Gruening?

They should also match what the ordinary folks who elected them are saying against the national polls' war chantey, "Let's Push With Bush Into Baghdad." Last week, I visited four states, and all of the hundreds of average Joes and Janes I spoke with were for U.N. inspectors returning and our tightening the choke leash on Iraq enough that nothing gets in or out without going through a U.S.-manned checkpoint.

A Vietnam combat Marine told me: "Certainly Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to his neighbors. But so are the leaders of Syria, Iran, North Korea and, for that matter, Pakistan. All of our comrades who died in Vietnam and those of us who vowed 'never again' will now again watch another generation march off to war without the approval of the American people."

"Who'll pay for it?" asks another citizen. "We all know it'll be our kids. They're the ones who will pay, as it has been since the Revolutionary War. Those who reap the rewards are of a different category."

Congressmen and congresswomen, which category are you? Will you vote for your own political future or the future of our country and its current generation of defenders? Will you challenge the rush to war along with Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who said last week that giving Bush the same broad, unchecked authority Congress gave LBJ is tantamount to allowing him to start a war and saying, "Don't bother me, I'll read about it in the newspapers"?


-------------------------------------------------------------

Col. David H. Hackworth, author of his new best-selling "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts," "Price of Honor" and "About Face," has seen duty or reported as a sailor, soldier and military correspondent in nearly a dozen wars and conflicts – from the end of World War II to the recent fights against international terrorism.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29035

 

1. I notice Hackworth doesn't dare attack our action in 1991 or Afghanistan.

2. Hackworth predicates his story on the fact that the conflict will take place. However, Saddam may blink first, particularly if he remembers what happened the last time he failed to take that option.

 

1991 only occurred because we messed up.

Prior to attacking Kuweit Saddam informed the then US ambassador to Baghdad of his plans to invade Kuweit.

When no dissent was forthcoming Saddam took that as a clear sign to go ahead. And, we musn't forget that Saddam had been our big ally when he started the war against Iran, where we supported him.

Afghanistan?

Outside of Kabul nothing much has changed, and we are in no way in control of the situation.

Just like we were never in control of the situation in Korea or Vietnam.

And they were contained conflicts, whereas this is quite different.

But all of that has nothing to do with the fact that we are going down this dumb road alone because no other country is falling for our propaganda, and that we'll be picking up the tab, not that we can afford it.

The thing is that Bush seems dead intent on going down his road irrespective of wether Saddam blinks or not.

 

"1991 only occurred because we messed up.

Prior to attacking Kuweit Saddam informed the then US ambassador to Baghdad of his plans to invade Kuweit.

When no dissent was forthcoming Saddam took that as a clear sign to go ahead."

So you're taking Iraq's word for it? This complete and utter distortion of the facts emanates from one source only, the Iraqis.

Here's what Glaspie said which the Iraqi's then claimed gave them "permission:"

"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Again, as already mentioned in another thread that you participated in, here is the entire transcript of the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, as it came from the Iraqis it has never been authenticated or agreed to as accurate by the State dept:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

"Outside of Kabul nothing much has changed, and we are in no way in control of the situation."

OBL is most likely dead, a huge part of Al-Quaeda is disrupted and reeling, the Taliban are gone. Nothing has changed? Right. So we should have stayed out? Obviously not according to your hero, Hackworth.

"Just like we were never in control of the situation in Korea or Vietnam."

You're off on an irrelevant tangent.

"The thing is that Bush seems dead intent on going down his road irrespective of wether Saddam blinks or not."

You're saying that Bush is going to pull the trigger if Iraq caves. Total crap.

 

lol, now TigerO thinks that the invasion of Kuwait was all our fault. Now we know what kind if intellect we are dealing with here.

 

This statement by Glaspie: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." reeks of 'Please feel free to attack and take over Kuwait.' At least in SaddamSpeak.

 

I wouldn't believe too much of what our State Propaganda in DC gives out, after all, when Saddam went after Iran we gave him military and financial support without any scruples about him being a dictator or us expressing any discomfort about the fact that he started a war.

Besides, we have lied before to start imbecilic and totally senseless wars:

Almost 40 years ago, Congress kowtowed to another president from Texas and approved the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution – based on the repeated lies of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that Red patrol boats had attacked U.S. warships on a supposedly routine mission off North Vietnam, which the senior admiral in the Pacific had predicted months before would provoke exactly this type of response and result in an escalation of the Vietnam War. Only Sens. Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska stood tall and voted "nay." When Morse chillingly predicted we'd lose the war and LBJ would go down in flames, most members of Congress responded that they were patriotically backing the president in a time of crisis.

A Vietnam combat Marine told me: "Certainly Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to his neighbors. But so are the leaders of Syria, Iran, North Korea and, for that matter, Pakistan. All of our comrades who died in Vietnam and those of us who vowed 'never again' will now again watch another generation march off to war without the approval of the American people."

"Who'll pay for it?" asks another citizen. "We all know it'll be our kids. They're the ones who will pay, as it has been since the Revolutionary War. Those who reap the rewards are of a different category."
-------------------------------------------------------------

Col. David H. Hackworth, author of his new best-selling "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts," "Price of Honor" and "About Face," has seen duty or reported as a sailor, soldier and military correspondent in nearly a dozen wars and conflicts – from the end of World War II to the recent fights against international terrorism.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29035

And, again, nobody else in the world is falling for this crap of there being any factual need to take out Saddam.

And we don't have the money to go on adventures we'll be funding alone, particularly not with all the huge domestic problems we have.

 

I think the source was the NYT, was it not?

 

Uh, talkin' about Juniors lil adventure here

 

"Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you.
I love the liberal twist to it. Not U.S. Government but Bush Administration.