Screw the France and Germany

[Art]

APB,

What would your alternative plan be? Use useless inspections endlessly, or until such time as a Democrat is in the White House and Iraq kicks them out and this whole thing blows over? Or rather than blowing over, how about this whole thing blows up, say, New York or Washington or Chicago?

You ask what happens after we go to war with the people that hate us. Simple. Some of them will be dead. They can't hate us any longer. Because, they'll be dead. Others will still hate us, but, they'll be picking up rubble for the next 30 years and will have to act like France and Germany did for a while.

Hey, I've never complained when my wife fakes it, so I'm not going to start with Iraq fakes liking it .

You seem to think we would think about going to war in an effort to win hearts and minds. That's not what we're doing. We could get the entire Middle East holding parades of adoration for the U.S. and the wonderful President Bush by simply killing all the Jews here, and handing Israel over to Syria. If we wanted the love of these people, it wouldn't be hard.

But, as long as we think Jews shouldn't all be killed, people won't like us. What do we care? They can hate us all the live long day. Just do it like Saudi Arabia, who really hates us, but has to kiss our *** because, well, just because. .

The only garbage here is you saying that somehow a war would be intended to make these people love us. That's not it at all. The war is intended to kill them. As many as we can stomach. Next time there's a big rally, hit it with a daisy cutter. End the rally. Then, they'll hate us from their homes. That's better than where we are today.

There are absolutely NO viable options here. Either we go in and take out the Iraqi weapons or we don't. Those are our two choices. As they aren't rushing up to inspectors handing over these weapons, it goes to figure that they won't give them up without us carrying a baseball bat and knocking some heads in. Even then they won't. But, it won't matter. Not all of them will be destroyed. But some will be. And that's a better situation than we have today.

But, please, tell me the alternatives we haven't considered. I'm dying to hear what they are.

[redman]

and again, APB, I still patiently await your input into howthis thread doesn't make war with Iraq now necessary . . .

[APB]

My suggestion that maybe some thought had been put into the future of the region was based on the potential eventuality described in Fansince62's. Sorry for suggesting that those proposing war might have been doing it with an eye for the future.

Had I known that the whole point was just to kill everybody that may or may not hate us, I wouldn't have bothered posting.

Seriously, you people horrify me. I'm not a pacifist and I'm not afraid of a fight, but have you people given any thought whatsoever to the future? Sure, we can wipe them out and they'll dig through rubble for 30 years. Then what? Sure, we can and should destroy any sort of weapons of mass destruction they may posess, but how would that prevent another 9/11?

Airsarge, I have the utmost respect for our fighting men and women. I don't want my children to deal with this stuff either. But, wiping out that country in my opinion would not accomplish that goal. Would it be a temporary fix? Maybe. But, in 10-15 years we'll be doing the same bunch of stuff and we'll still be living in fear.

Talk amongst yourselves. I'm done.

[Sarge]

Don't go away dude, I'm interested in hearing what your answer to this problem is. You never answered that. Trust me, the military is the last one that wants to go to war. But don't you find it interesting that there isn't anyone in the military that is ****in' about having to go on this mission? Plenty of people used to b!tch about going to various places that clinton sent the military so we could deliver pizzas and such. But every one of us knows what this guy is up to, and we know that when he, his family and all the low speed yo yo operators that follow him have been sent to see allah, the chances of another 9/11 will decrease.

Nowhere did I advocate destroying the whole country, although part of me believes that doing precisely that would be a very stark lesson to any other arab/muslim country that maybe they should reign in their crazies before they do something stupid and piss us off again. At least if they are digging through the rubble, they will have something else to think about other than ways to come here and start sh!t. And, believe it or not, an a$$ kicking is the only thing that the arab mentality over there relates to and respects.

But seriously, when have we ever wasted a country and not rebuilt the very people we wasted? We even gave Iraq the chance after the Gulf War. It's just that they chose to spend money on weapons and palaces instead of food and infastructure. Whose fault is that? I mean, how big a schmuck do we have to be here?

I guess I just don't get people like you, and in a way, I'm glad I don't. There are, as Art pointed out, basically two choices here. saddam has played the UN like a crack whore for 11 years. By all accounts, he violated the cease fire agreement about a year after the Gulf War, and should have had his a$$ kicked then. But we didn't press it, because we were trying to be the good guys.Lotta good that did, eh? So, we either let him continue to do this, or we lay wood to him. He has only himself to blame.

After Iraq, if other countries don't get the hint and shape up, well, we just keep going down the list until they either play nice or say uncle.

But like I said dude, don't run away......change my mind. Tell me some way to fix this situation. Support your position. That's the whole point of posting here. Later

[PokerPacker]

instead of going to war with iraq, we should first threaten Saddam's life with a CIA bombing near his location and scare the $hit out of him. then force him to resign. we may be able to get OPEQ to lower gas prices with saddam gone. the rest of OPEQ may be fightened, so not only do we rid Iraq of Saddam, we could improve our economy.

[phishhead]

Ok, I don't know a whole lot about the situation we are in. Some of you may think you do, thats fine. But anyways, I have a question... Maybe I read something wrong, but did I read a statement from someone basically saying you are unpatriotic if you are against war?

[RiggoDrill]

Without diving into the normal Iraq fray (my opinions have been stated) ...

Rumsfeld's remarks are revealing, and troubling. Could it be true that our zeal for expanding NATO eastward was primarily a way to trump France and Germany as powers in Europe?

After all, Russia hasn't been a threat to invade Eastern Europe for some time.

At this point, I'm all but certain we will invade Iraq , with eager participation from such military powerhouses as Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic.

What a coalition of the willing!!!

The danger is that, as a result, NATO itself may disintegrate, thus dismantling the very mechanism we are using to gain hegemony in Europe. We have to remember that NATO is comprised of many other neutral and/or relatively pacifist nations who signed on for mutual security, not just to protect America's regional interests.

[Art]

APB,

Perhaps you've missed it, but a great deal of thought to the future of the region has been contemplated by this administration. The vision of the future of the Middle East is one without Saddam as a ruler. That's the vision we've considered.

By extension, let's see if we can't think for a moment about what the vision might mean. It might mean the end to immediate sanctions. It might mean that money and aid would flow to the people -- as it has in Afghanistan -- because America would be involved to assure it wasn't simply all swallowed up and used on military spending.

A country might not be immediately as aggressive with the rest of the world the moment Saddam is killed. It could even be said that the world might be a better place I suppose. But, to pretend no thought has been given to the future is almost as laughable as seeming to think going to war was being done to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

You've gone from saying no case for war was justified here, to the admission that, "Are these indictments strong enough to justify a war. Yes, they are." But, that, they hate us so much that war won't cause them to love us so why should we bother? You were responded to with the factual point that war isn't meant to make them love us. It's meant to kill as many of those who hate us as possible. You responded that it is horrifying to you to think war was not a love fest of some sort. As if we were dropping Valentine's Day candy on the sands of Iraq during the prospective conflict.

Seriously, what's your point?

That we haven't examined alternatives though you stedfastly refuse to mention any. What I have gathered is that since they hate us, and war won't make them love us, that war is useless here. That's essentially it, right? War is wrong because it won't change their minds on us. It'll just reinforce them, right?

So, your alternatives appear to be ones that involve finding a way to make them love us, or at least like us. So, is it killing all Jews you want to do, or is it just handing Israel over to them. Or both perhaps? I want to know what you seem to think will turn them around on us because other than these two items, can you seriously think of anything?

You can't say money, or defensive help. We've given that to the Saudis and they can't stand us. Basically your point comes down to since they hate us already and war will make them keep hating us, why bother? Since you keep missing it in your horrified haze, I'll say it again. War is to kill some of those who hate us and to destroy some of that which could harm us. That's what it is.

You should be horrified at what war is. You just shouldn't be confused about what it is.

[Art]

Originally posted by phishhead

Ok, I don't know a whole lot about the situation we are in. Some of you may think you do, thats fine. But anyways, I have a question... Maybe I read something wrong, but did I read a statement from someone basically saying you are unpatriotic if you are against war?

phish,

The statement you read was not that simply being against war is unpatriotic. You can be against war in all cases, or only in some. In the specific point you may be referring, the question was asked whether another poster only found himself willing to believe in military action by America when he could count the dead Americans after we've been attacked. If you believe there needs to be a body count of dead Americans to justify war you are unpatriotic.

Simply being against war doesn't make you so.

[Art]

RD,

"The danger is that, as a result, NATO itself may disintegrate....."

Seriously, what's the danger exactly? The fall of the Soviet Union put an end to NATO. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were ying and yang and now yang is part of ying. If NATO crumbles, so what? Is there any tangible evidence WHATSOEVER that it's necessary in the world today?

Interestingly though you are RIGHT on about what NATO is and what it is not. NATO is not just to defend America's national interests. This is why we don't care one bit if France joins in against Iraq. NATO is a mutual defense thing, and if we were attacked, France should be jumping up and down to help.

But, it's not the U.S. that's trying to get France to "help" us here. France is screaming that the decision about what American should do in Iraq is not up to America, but is up to the U.N. That dog don't hunt .

[fansince62]

RD......

1) a coalition in this instance is for poltical purposes, not military. we don't need, and in many ways find it a burden, a coalition with non-interoperable allies. would it be nice to have a coalition presence? yes. is it critical or even substantive from a military p-o-v? no. although fighting the war would become more difficult from a logistic point were, say Germany, not to provide airspace and logistic basing/staging.....it is not critical. It does, howevre, raise the cost.

2) in the wars fought today - here and abroad - it's much more about information. no matter how vitriolic the cross-Atlantic exchanges, it remains in everyone's interest to keep this flowing at some level.

3) have you ever worked with the Polish military?

4) gaining American hegemony over Europe is an interesting twist. Is this a de facto consequence of WWII and the successes of our economic system, a stated policy of every post-War administration, or something you imagined? You need to amplify exactly what it is you are impliing with the word hegemony. At first blush, it seems to have failed wrt France.

5) As a point of fact, NATO has enaged recently in Out of Area, non-Article 5 missions that are not part of the original mutual security formula: in other words, the rationale for its existence is changing. Additionally, though with very limitted progress, the Europeans have been attempting to establish a separate military capability distinct from American influence under the European Union-like umbrella (I forget the actual title of the organization). Anyone who has worked with the 19 member nations immediately recognizes that the reasons and responses for NATO participation are as varied as the permutations on membership.

i agree with you, however, that there has been enough discussion on Iraq. the book has already been written on this one.....

[redman]

Originally posted by APB

My suggestion that maybe some thought had been put into the future of the region was based on the potential eventuality described in Fansince62's. Sorry for suggesting that those proposing war might have been doing it with an eye for the future.

Had I known that the whole point was just to kill everybody that may or may not hate us, I wouldn't have bothered posting.

Your sarcasm is both noted and misplaced. It's unfortunate that you choose to acuse the people with whom you debate as being thoughtless fools. Perhaps you simply aren't up to the challenge of responding to their arguments on the merits.

As others have pointed out, you have yet to say what you would do, instead dwelling upon what you would not do. We all agree that war is hell. What you have yet to seem to acknowledge is that war is more hellish when your enemy is allowed to build up his strength, and doubly so when that strength involves chemical and biological and nuclear weapons.

The very simple way of stating my position is that I'd rather fight a war right now on Iraqi soil than to wait for 5, 10, or 15 years and have at least some of it fought on American soil, using WMD's that either the Iraqi's or their terrorist friends bring here. Either way, there will be radical Muslims who will hate us. I'd rather ensure that their hatred is not buttressed by Iraqi WMD's.

None of what you said has indicated that this sentiment of mine and others is misplaced.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by fansince62

RD......

1) a coalition in this instance is for poltical purposes, not military. we don't need, and in many ways find it a burden, a coalition with non-interoperable allies. would it be nice to have a coalition presence? yes. is it critical or even substantive from a military p-o-v? no. although fighting the war would become more difficult from a logistic point were, say Germany, not to provide airspace and logistic basing/staging.....it is not critical. It does, howevre, raise the cost.

Agreed, but what's your point? We are, by far, the dominant military power in the world. We could go it alone ... from aircraft carriers if need be. Thus, such coalitions are almost by definition purely political and/or symbolic.

2) in the wars fought today - here and abroad - it's much more about information. no matter how vitriolic the cross-Atlantic exchanges, it remains in everyone's interest to keep this flowing at some level.

Yes, but where is the locus of power in Europe? In Berlin? Paris? London? Dare I ask ... Washington?

3) have you ever worked with the Polish military?

I'm sure they're well-trained and effective, but when, in the past 400 years or so, has Poland been a geopolitical power to be reckoned with? Ah, you see my point.

4) gaining American hegemony over Europe is an interesting twist. Is this a de facto consequence of WWII and the successes of our economic system, a stated policy of every post-War administration, or something you imagined? You need to amplify exactly what it is you are impliing with the word hegemony. At first blush, it seems to have failed wrt France.

The Locus of Political and/or Economic power in Europe now.

5) As a point of fact, NATO has enaged recently in Out of Area, non-Article 5 missions that are not part of the original mutual security formula: in other words, the rationale for its existence is changing. Additionally, though with very limitted progress, the Europeans have been attempting to establish a separate military capability distinct from American influence under the European Union-like umbrella (I forget the actual title of the organization). Anyone who has worked with the 19 member nations immediately recognizes that the reasons and responses for NATO participation are as varied as the permutations on membership.

Independent efforts by the Europeans reinforce the thought of my original post. We need a reason to be there, and post-war reconstruction or the Soviet Union are no longer reasons.

i agree with you, however, that there has been enough discussion on Iraq. the book has already been written on this one.....

Actually, I think we agree on most of this train of thought (gasp!!) Cats and dogs ... living together? :laugh:

My post was not an opinion per se, just a possibility thrown out to provoke thought. In that I've succeeded, as your thoughts are insightful.

HTTR.

[APB]

Quick-fire response time. I have stuff to do.

To the board war-mongers in general: You have asked me questions to which I have not responded. I have asked you questions to which you have not responded. Life goes on. If you want to know options other than war, do some research. Or, I'll supply my answers as soon as someone gives me a legitimate answer to my question of how war with Iraq will prevent another 9-11. Suggesting that they will be too busy digging themselves out of the rubble will not be considered an acceptable response. As for my alternative suggestions, I'll give you a hint: one involves a single, well-placed bullet.

Art: See previous response. I'll provide a framework for winning over their hearts and minds peacefully as soon as you suggest how "killing some of those who hate us" will ultimately do anything. It doesn't take many people hating us to do a world of damage, as I'm sure you've noticed.

Art 2: My saying that in my opinion the case for war has not been made and then acknowledging that war is justified are not contradictory thoughts. At the moment, I could take a nap, or I could work. I could justify taking a nap because I'm tired, but that doesn't mean that that is in my best interest.

Art 3: Did you honestly write of me: "You responded that it is horrifying to you to think war was not a love fest of some sort?" I don't recall saying that. I can't even imagine what you are talking about. At this point, you normally making some comment that would best be described as "stupid." Something about needing your hand held, or needing a baby-sitter. I won't do that.

Art 4: My suggestion that the war might be seen as a way to "win hearts and minds" was in reference to FanSince62's post. Similarly, AirSarge wrote that "they might just come to think maybe we aren't so bad after all." I was pointing out the fact that that sort of assumption was absurd.

Art 5: War is not wrong. This war at this point is, in my opinion. Why should I have to justify why I think the war won't help when I haven't seen anyone of you legitimatey answer why war ultimately will help? I'm planning on being alive for another 70 years or so. Making the world a better place for the next 5 or 10 years will be of little solace in year 6 or 11 when the s--- really hits the fan.

Redman: Pointing me to another thread, oddly enough, probably isn't going to convince me of anything. That thread has nothing to do with my argument.

Redman 2: I never categorized anyone as being thoughtless fools. I said you horrified me. If I thought you were thoughtless fools, I would be bemused. Instead, you people seem reasonably intelligent but misguided. As for whether or not my allegedly calling those with whom I'm "debating" "thoughtless fools" is an indication that I am simply not "up to the challenge of responding to their arguments on the merits," I could make reference to the numerous inferences that I am ignorant. I won't. I said you could call me ignorant. Knock yourselves out, just don't misread my statements.

AirSarge: "It is better to be feared than loved." Interesting. I hear Osama has that tatooed on his bicep.

[redman]

Weak, APB, weak. Perhaps if you troubled yourself to read something on the subjects you're debating you'd (1) learn a little about them, and (2) be better able to explain your own position on them.

Let's try to play your game here a little bit. You seem to think that the only view on this board is to bomb Iraq into oblivion, requiring the "Iraqi's to dig themselves out of the rubble for the next 25 years", wasn't that what you said. It would appear that your view of our military options is as simplistic as you accuse us of being regarding your (heretofore unexplained) non-military options.

The key to this standoff is WMD's, and the key to those in Iraq is the regime that develops and protects them- the Tikriti gangsters led by Saddam. To me, the issue of WMD's and regime change in Iraq are so married to each other that they cannot be separated from one another.

The point is that the defeat of the Iraqi military is not the key here. We defeated them resoundingly 12 years ago, and yet the present problems continued. Not to trivialize the American lives it will still require to remove them totally as a threat, but they're but a house of cards needing a push to topple.

What we're after this time is the regime and the interconnected political and social alliances that support it. Those things don't require wholesale destruction of Iraq as your simplistic critique implies. They require lightning fast military and covert ops moves toward Saddam's power bases in the country. The nation won't protect him as soon as it realizes that he's no longer a threat to issue reprisals against them.

The bottom line here is that you're not even fighting the last war (which likewise didn't require the Iraqi's "to dig themselves out for the next 25 years") but rather something resembling WWII or earlier.

As for a post-war Iraq, there is little doubt that we face challenges in filling the void created by the dismantling of Saddam's regime. For one thing, democracies are far better at mobilizing for acute crises such as war than they are at maintaining a steady hand over long periods of time on peaceful ventures that require consistent resources from them. Also, this is not a culture that has many similarities to our own, unlike for example post-war Germany.

However, the fact that an effort is going to be difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be undertaken. Again, I'd rather not wait for the Iraqi's to rebuild to the point where there's no debate even among the peaceniks that they have WMD's because they've used them already.

And the argument about creating more 9/11 terrorists doesn't fly either. (For the moment, I'll ignore the fact that Saddam and his regime have about as much to do with radical Islam on a philosophical level as Hitler had to do with Lutheranism.) Do you really think that a do-nothing posture with regards to threats within the Arab/Islamic world will mean that Islamic radicals will hate us any less? Twelve years ago we liberated an Arab country and we stayed completely within the bounds of the sponsoring U.N. resolution by not driving to Baghdad and by not removing Saddam. 15-20 years ago we supplied weapons and assistance to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan who were fighting against the Soviets. That didn't stop 9/11 from happening, did it?

It's time to stop appeasing and worrying about the things that go bump in the night from the radical Islamic world, and simply do what's right for our country.

Now, for the umpteenth time (and I know you're quite a busy person), might you grace us with your intelligent and comprehensive and - above all - reasonable alternative to war with Iraq in the near future?

[APB]

I can't handle you people.

1. Redman, how can I be accused of making no suggestions while at the same time proposing a "do-nothing attitude." Weak.

2. You wrote: "You seem to think that the only view on this board is to bomb Iraq into oblivion, requiring the "Iraqi's to dig themselves out of the rubble for the next 25 years", wasn't that what you said. It would appear that your view of our military options is as simplistic as you accuse us of being regarding your (heretofore unexplained) non-military options."

What I said was essentially mocking Art's earlier simplistic view of war. Art said: "Others will still hate us, but, they'll be picking up rubble for the next 30 years and will have to act like France and Germany did for a while." Talk to Art. If you're scared to talk to Art, then go away.

Weak.

3. Will war create more 9/11 terrorists? Maybe. Will war stop all 9/11 terrorists? No. That's my point.

Weak.

I take back what I said earlier. You people are morons.

Seriously, I'm done.

[SonnyJ]

APB's response is maybe the lamest I have ever seen. "I won't present any alternatives because I don't consider the alternatives presented to me legitimate." You may as well just write, "I have no practical alternative to add."

BTW, assassination of a foreign head-of-state is illegal. We can't do it. We can remove one as the result of war, I believe. Some legal eagle out there probably can explain this better than me, though.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by redman

Weak, APB, weak ......

........

...... Now, for the umpteenth time (and I know you're quite a busy person), might you grace us with your intelligent and comprehensive and - above all - reasonable alternative to war with Iraq in the near future?

Redman,

Your logic is infallible. The end has been stated emphatically: The world will be a Much Better Place without the regime in Baghdad.

A fundamental question, then, is does an end justify ANY means? Any rational person (and I assume you are rational) would say no.

The world would be a much better place without the regimes in Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and just about every former Soviet sattelite ending in "-stan". Would military invasions of each of these countries make sense for the greater good? After all, most of them have Weapons of Mass Destruction, unstable governments, large numbers of people who resent/or hate the US, and therefore present dangerous possibilities.

No one likes Saddam. No one wants Saddam to have nukes. Practically everyone would like a world without Saddam.

However, the means to achieve that end are open to question, and rightly so. Just because a world without Saddam couldn't come sooner, doesn't mean the tactics, strategy, planning, timing, attitude, and motives of the present administration are just or unsullied. They may be, and they may not be. This isn't a Rep/Dem, Conservative/Liberal thing to me: Clinton's decisions regarding Yugoslavia offended me greatly, as Bush's bellicose stance troubles me now.

A means chosen often has many unforeseen ends. Arming and giving covert-ops training to radical muslims the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and the KLA in Kosovo achieved their objectives: ridding the world of communist tyrants. End achieved.

But when we consider the result of our choices ... insurrection in Macedonia and Al Queda camps come to mind ... perhaps we could have achieved the same end differently?

No. There is only one way. The American way.

[Sarge]

OK APB, I'll say it again, you are ignorant of the situation in Iraq. You infer that most people here are war mongers, yet once again you have failed to STATE YOUR SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM. Answer the question.

Since you are new here, it might do you some good to look around at some of the profiles of the folks that inhabit this board. There are representatives of the military here, several civilians that work for the military or US government, and several that have retired from the military. I have 18 years in myself, and have been in every country in Europe, around the Middle East, Northern Africa and some former Soviet Bloc countries, as well as Alaska, Korea, Japan and Latin America. Think I might know a little bit about what I am talking about? So listen, and I will try to break this down in bits and pieces you might understand. If I get above your head, let me know.

Iraq has chemical weapons. Take my word for it. They are close to nuclear capability. Take my word for it. They sponsor and abide terrorist activities. Take my word for it. Agreed so far?

The Gulf War came to an end because we were kicking the living crap out of Iraq. Take my word for it. I was there. They signed a cease fire agreement. Not a surrender, but a cease fire. In the cease fire, they agreed to abide by all UN resolutions, reduce their military, and were told that before they could freely sell oil again, they must rid the country of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. They have failed to do so. In fact, they have imported goods to make more of the items. With me so far? THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF UN RESOLUTIONS. STATEMENT OF FACT. PERIOD. The cease fire stipulates that if they are found in violation, we can start up kicking their butts again, no questions asked.That is why we don't need anymore resolutions.

So now, the question again. What do we do about this? Normally, I wouldn't care so much about WMD. Hell, we obviously have them. But unlike us, they have shown that they are not trustworthy nor responsible enough to keep such things. They are a nation state, and have the resources of a nation state. They spend those resources not on food for the people, nor infastructure, nor anything else to help the Iraqi people. saddam spends the resources of the state on palaces, weapons and saddam. That is about it. Tell me APB, that some of the weapons they create won't end up in the hands of osama disciples. Not unlike the $25,000 saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers in Isreal. If you believe that they won't, you are not only ignorant, but a fool, and I am grateful you are not in charge of foreign policy.

So again, what to do? It is obvious the UN is either incapable or unwilling to enforce their own resolutions. If that is the case, why make resolutions at all? Why even be in existance? Hell if I know. Iraq has been in violation of UN resolutions for at least 10 years, and nothing has been done to change their behavior. They have been asked nicely. Diplomacy has been tried ad nausium. They have had minor bombings of some facilities. Yet they still persist importing banned items. So what do we do? You are about to find out in a few weeks.

As to what bombing Iraq will do to prevent another 9/11, who knows. But it will be one less regieme out their that hates us and schemes against us. It will be one less source of chemical and biological weapons. It will be one less place for a$$holes to hide. You see my friend, they are not the last ones on the sh!t list. Notice, if you will, what country that starts with "I" and ends with "ran" will be surrounded after this little excursion. Iran the true source of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran supplies Hezbolah and other cowardly fundementalist organizations in Lebenon. They also supply Syria and help north korea with missle programs. If some of these places don't get the hint after Iraq and change course to try and live with other civilized nations, then they might not be around much longer, either.

As for your assertion that these countries cannot come to like us eventually, that is absurd. Look at Japan and Germany. They hated us during WWII. After we occupied those countries for awhile and pulled them up out of the ashes, they came to like and respect us for the most part. Especially Germany, when we saved Berlin from the commies with the Berlin Airlift. But in the end, I don't give a rats a$$ if they like us or not. When I take off from here in awhile, I'll do my very best to direct bombs and fire down on them until they don't want to play anymore. I'll kill as many as I can, until someone tells me I can't play anymore, then I'll gather my crap and come home. Maybe the lesson will last longer than 11 years this time.

And you show your ignorance again when you imply that no thought has gone into what happens to the country afterward. Read here:

While still holding out on permission for a full-scale, 80,000-strong US invasion force to be stationed in Turkey, the Gul government has ceded part of America’s requirements. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and Turkish sources say Ankara will make bases available for the landing of 25-30,000 US troops for the first stage of the war, turning a blind eye to up to 40,000, while also permitting US invasion troops the limited use of Turkish air and naval bases and civilian airports, including Istanbul’s international airport. (To subscribe to DNW,

Jordan’s king Abdullah II this week lifted the restrictions he abruptly clamped down on the movements of American troops in the kingdom, their use of Jordanian bases as launching pads to invade Iraq and strike at the western bases from which Scud missiles were fired against Israel in 1991. He also renewed permission for US warplanes to reach Iraq via Jordanian airspace and gave the nod for Israeli air force flights through Jordanian skies, provided they were coordinated with the US and Jordanian authorities.

According to our sources, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, obtained Turkey’s concessions in the few hours he spent in Incirlik and Ankara Sunday, January 19.

Defining their accord as a military document, the Myers and the Turks agreed to set aside Turkey’s territorial claims in the two northern Iraqi oil cities Kirkuk and Mosul until a later stage.

Soon after Myers departed Ankara, American sources made it clear that the United States fully intended taking over Iraq’s oil fields, administering them in the long term and using Iraqi oil revenues to partly defray the costs of conducting war and maintaining a long-term military occupation of Iraq.

According to DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, the war bill which, unlike Gulf War I, America will carry more or less single-handed, is estimated at $130 billion, while maintaining app. 70,000 US troops in the country to protect the oil fields and maintain Iraq’s post-war stability could run to another $10-12 billion a year. To raise this cash, the United States plans to increase Iraq’s oil output from 1.6 million to 6.5 million barrels per day, necessitating further heavy outlay for renovating the badly run down Iraqi oil production equipment.

At the same time, the long-term, military-backed control over Iraq’s oil resources – on the spot rather than from outside the region – will make America the leading strategic-political-military force in the Middle East and Persian Gulf as well giving Washington a controlling interest in the global oil market.

In consideration of Washington’s regional design, the Gul government in Ankara decided that its wisest course at this stage would be to shelve its two-century- old claim to Iraqi oil fields for the time being.

The key clauses in the US-Turkish military agreement are:

1. Turkish passage for one light US division of no more than 15,000 troops to transit into northern Iraq - conditional on a US pledge to end the military campaign against Saddam Hussein within days.

2. Shortly before the invasion, Turkey will allow US troops to land at Turkish air and naval bases and go into action in Iraq.

3. In the first stage of the US offensive, the Turkish government and high command will bring the Turkish forces who drove into northern Iraq last month back to their bases. They will stay there until a new US-Turkish accord is negotiated to formalize Turkey’s standing in Iraq. DEBKA-Net-Weekly had earlier reported Turkish troops as having taken up strategic positions along main roads. The Turkish government and high command undertook not to exploit the US campaign to grab positions in northern Iraq.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and intelligence sources note that, through this provision, General Myers lifted the Turkish military threat hanging over Kurdistan.

The carrot Myers proffered the Gul government, according to DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources in Washington, was an undertaking on behalf of President George W. Bush of US generosity in providing Turkey with post-war economic aid in return for responding to US demands for bases. The American general also held out possible US concessions to Turkey in the bargaining over the shape of the government administrations in northern Iraq and the Turkmen region.

Myers’ mission effectively ended the US-Turkish crisis that threatened US war plans in northern Iraq. According to the latest information, units of the 4th US Infantry Division, the whole of which was first tasked for the southern front, are now being shipped to Turkish bases for the jump into the northern oilfields together with 101st Airborne Division detachments.

These partial reversions by Turkey and Jordan to their first commitments, salvaged key elements of the original US blueprint for the war on Iraq, permitting a return to the three-way split of combat strength between the northern, western and southern sectors.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources in Washington and Amman attribute King Abdullah’s change of heart to the quieting of his acute eve-of-war jitters by renewed American guarantees to protect his kingdom and the reaffirmation of Israeli defense pledges. Jordan’s towns teem with Iraqi intelligence agents, whose subversive activities against the throne, hand in glove with dissident Palestinians and pro-Al Qaeda extremists, are intensifying as the war approaches.

On Thursday, January 23, Jordan requested the sale of an American air defense system to tighten control over Jordanian airspace and protection against foreign intervention.

Having Jordan back on track prompted sighs of relief among war planners in Washington.

The provision of bases in Jordan is essential for the occupation of western Iraq and eviction of the Iraqi military presence in the first stage of the anti-Saddam offensive. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources note that the capture of Baghdad and Saddam’s power base of Tikrit would be feasible without the use of bases in Turkey, but extremely difficult without Jordanian forward bases for flushing Iraqi forces out of western Iraq. Iraqi units, especially the ones stationed at the H2 and H3 base complexes, are armed with a large quantity of long-range surface-to-surface missiles, some with chemical or biological warheads. They could inflict grave damage on the American advance on Baghdad and Tikrit if they remained to the rear of that advance, as well as threatening Israel.

From Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, the monarch also received reaffirmation through secret emissaries of Israel’s guarantee to defend Hashemite rule in Jordan, according to DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources in Washington and Jerusalem. This guarantee is embodied in the Jordan-Israel 1994 peace treaty and reinforced in secret bilateral military and intelligence pacts.

But Abdullah made an additional, surprising request: Access to Israeli television, as soon as the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction has passed, for a personal message of peace and conciliation between the Arab nation and the Jewish State. The responses in Jerusalem and Washington are not known, but have probably been deferred until after Israel’s general election next Tuesday, January 28.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s political sources interpret this as a move by the Jordanian monarch to set himself up as the senior Arab arbiter of the destiny of the Palestinians after Saddam’s passing further diminishes his long-time ally, Yasser Arafat. Abdullah cherishes hopes of reclaiming the authority over the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem, which his father, Hussein, forfeited by losing the 1967 war.

I don't know, kinda sounds like things have been thought out a bit, huh? So as I said in the beginning, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? I can barely contain myself waiting for your reply.

[Sarge]

I take back what I said earlier. You people are morons. Seriously, I'm done.

Yes, you are. You've displayed an IQ lower than my dog, no grasp of logic and ignorance in the extreme. Bye, bye chuclklehead.

[SonnyJ]

RD (and APB),

No one (if I'm interpreting correctly) is arguing that war is a distasteful option.

What people are asking you for here is a viable alternative. It's not a challenge. It's a plea.

You hold reservations about heading into conflict. Great, your trepidations are natural and shared by many, if not all. But, please present other means that can conceivably bring the desired end to this matter.

[Talent Wasted at a Desk]

An interesting sorta-pro-US opinion column in a leading German newpaper:

Admonitions

By Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Playing it down doesn't help: The United States and some of its western allies are heading for a type of confrontation that hasn't been seen often in the past. It would be the bitter culmination of a series of equally bitter disputes that have gained in both number and intensity since President George W. Bush took office and that were only temporarily interrupted by the surge of solidarity after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Bush says he doesn't want to be fooled by Saddam Hussein anymore. Judging by his past behavior, his threat to attack Iraq single-handedly if necessary - that is, against the will of the other UN Security Council members - but above all in the near future has to be taken literally. Single-handed action in an international legal gray area would give gratification to those powers in the U.S. government that wanted to prevent Bush from trying to find legitimacy through the United Nations in the Iraq conflict.

If the German chancellor doesn't want to talk his way out later on, then he has tied himself down: His coalition of Social Democrats and Greens will reject a resolution that explicitly legitimates a military attack on Iraq. While Britain is pushing the deployment of its troops to the Gulf region, France is now heading the skeptic faction by calling for an extension of the weapons inspections. Although it may seem that Berlin and Paris are especially close at this historic moment in their relationship, it could easily turn out to be a fallacy when Bush - soon - extorts a decision from French President Jacques Chirac. Bush would not calm the waves by shoving aside objections and opposition; this would only ignite anti-American sentiment even further.

But Germany and the other European countries - oblivious to reality and obsessed by conspiracy theories - are more concerned about Bush's urging than about Iraq's aspirations for weapons of mass destruction, have to be aware of the likely political cost of a U.S.-British endeavor: Berlin's influence in Washington would be reduced to nil; obituaries would have to be written for the Atlantic alliance; and the common European security policy would be exposed as a farce. Nobody can want that!

Jan. 24

© Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2002

[Tarhog]

Emphasis on 'sorta'.

[Art]

APB, I'm sure I'll enjoy what's to come substantially more than you .

"Quick-fire response time. I have stuff to do."

Apparently that stuff remains to be evasive, confused, thoughtless and unable to competently express views without finding himself in a screaming hissy fit. You do have much to do, indeed.

"To the board war-mongers in general: You have asked me questions to which I have not responded. I have asked you questions to which you have not responded. Life goes on."

This is a powerful point APB. If only it were true. You have been asked questions to which you have not responded. That's correct. You have asked questions, and actually had answers. You don't like the answers, perhaps, but, you can't say every single question you've asked hasn't been directly answered.

Meanwhile, you continue to evade even simple statements to support a faltering argument. Worse, you say early in the thread that as an American it is your duty to be wary of our leadership and you ask if I agree. I say I do, and ask that as an American isn't it also your duty to be wary of dictators who have attempted to kill Americans and you haven't been able to answer. Why is that? Why is it that you have asked for alternatives to be inspected, and yet, you've offered not a single one. Is it because you have absolutely none you have been able to scribble down from your World History class yet, or is it that you just believe it's appropriate to be against anyone who has an idea, while being unable to formulate one yourself?

"If you want to know options other than war, do some research."

This is fascinating. You don't even understand the complexities of the current situation and have had to be walked through this conversation to this point, but we should do some research? Which of your professors gave you that little tactic to try?

"Or, I'll supply my answers as soon as someone gives me a legitimate answer to my question of how war with Iraq will prevent another 9-11. Suggesting that they will be too busy digging themselves out of the rubble will not be considered an acceptable response. As for my alternative suggestions, I'll give you a hint: one involves a single, well-placed bullet."

Who said anything we're contemplating doing in Iraq is designed to prevent another 9-11? It's designed to prevent something far worse than 9-11. What happed on 9-11 was an attack using a conventional airplane. We're trying to prevent that same thing with biologic or chemical weapons attached. And, the manner military action can prevent such a thing is by destroying such things. Have you missed that in all this? Assassination is a fine alternative, though. Too bad you didn't think of it before this point for us to consider. Of course, as is usual with your points, since you really have no stance of your own and instead you are regurgitating the spoon-fed lectures you've been attending, you have contradicted yourself. You can't actually mean that assassination is a viable alternative for us here because earlier in this thread you wrote, derisively for those of us who can't see it as clearly as you, "Do you people not see that killing Saddam, to paraphrase Star Wars, "would make him stronger than you can possibly imagine?"

So, since you were persuaded by the point, let me ask you, do you people (people since this conversation is obviously with you and the college teacher with his hand up your butt mouthing your words for you) not see that killing Saddam, to paraphrase Star Wars, "would make him stronger than you can possibly imagine?" Actually, I don't agree with that at all as a dead man can only be so strong, especially when he's not all that well loved when he's alive. While I rather like the idea of assassination as an idea, obviously, you don't, and in a desperate attempt to come up with something, you've gone ahead and let your own point earlier in the thread defeat you later in it. Pity. I thought I was the moron here.

"Art: See previous response. I'll provide a framework for winning over their hearts and minds peacefully as soon as you suggest how "killing some of those who hate us" will ultimately do anything. It doesn't take many people hating us to do a world of damage, as I'm sure you've noticed."

I've suggested several times how killing some of those who hate us will ultimately do something. You see, if some of those who hate us are dead, they can't do anything. See how that works? It's a straight one for one thing. Not all that complex at all. Doesn't even take a big fat brain to figure out. You kill someone who hates us, and he ceases having the capacity to harm us. Now, again, tell us how to win the hearts and minds peacefully. I'm sure you, the Hitler youth and the Middle East will adore the plan you'll come up with.

"Art 2: My saying that in my opinion the case for war has not been made and then acknowledging that war is justified are not contradictory thoughts. At the moment, I could take a nap, or I could work. I could justify taking a nap because I'm tired, but that doesn't mean that that is in my best interest."

Ahh, I see. You're arguing the perfect point. On the one hand the case for war hasn't been justified. On the other hand it has. Obviously, since you've capably nailed down both sides of the debate you really can't lose, is that what I'm seeing? Or, is it that you just don't even understand how your words strung together to contradict themselves and you are too ignorant to say, "Yeah, that was dumb of me I guess." In fact, saying that a case for war has not been made and then acknowledging that war is justified are directly contradictory. If war was not justified, the case would not be made. If war is justified the case has been. I would suggest you take that nap quickly. Perhaps it'll clear your convoluted effort here at explaining how you embody everything and therefore nothing.

"Art 3: Did you honestly write of me: "You responded that it is horrifying to you to think war was not a love fest of some sort?" I don't recall saying that. I can't even imagine what you are talking about. At this point, you normally making some comment that would best be described as "stupid." Something about needing your hand held, or needing a baby-sitter. I won't do that. "

Again, APB, your inability to follow your own points of view is a weakness that limits you in this discussion. It is stupid for you to fail to realize you have repeatedly brought up the truism that going to war with people that dislike us won't make them start liking us. That's been a hammering point for you. It's even a good one if your opponent thinks going to war will bring love and laughter. Actually, in the first Gulf War, going to war did bring happiness to the people because they thought we were liberating them. This time they probably hate us for not doing so, so it's too late for love. But, no matter. If you feel the paraphrased point you were making is not accurate, I'll say sorry for overstating and I'll move on. I don't even need to make that big a point out of it. I mean, heck, you've already shown you can't keep your own points straight, so, why try to walk you through the other points you've made you don't understand, you know?

"Art 4: My suggestion that the war might be seen as a way to "win hearts and minds" was in reference to FanSince62's post. Similarly, AirSarge wrote that "they might just come to think maybe we aren't so bad after all." I was pointing out the fact that that sort of assumption was absurd. "

Fair enough. Well, fair enough if indeed you had said, "Okay. We go to war. What next? The people who currently hate the US suddenly love us?" after Sarge said, "they might just come to think maybe we aren't so bad after all." But, in fact, you said what you said before Sarge. So, once again, you can't even keep your own comments straight. Why is it that you are so weak within your own views you don't even know the timeline upon which you've said your views?

I swear, I have more logical and thoughful discussions with my cat. I hope you aren't taking out heavy debt to finish college. You may not be able to recoup given how little you remember what you've said.

"Art 5: War is not wrong. This war at this point is, in my opinion."

At this point is the point prior to you saying it is justified, right? Just depends? Or, that's right, it is justified, it's just not right. That's what you're saying? You said we were justified here. Justified means, to demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. So, how can we be both right and wrong at the same time? Are you sure you're not Tom Daschle?

"Why should I have to justify why I think the war won't help when I haven't seen anyone of you legitimatey answer why war ultimately will help? I'm planning on being alive for another 70 years or so. Making the world a better place for the next 5 or 10 years will be of little solace in year 6 or 11 when the s--- really hits the fan."

You should have to justify it because we have justified our points. See, like what you are seeing or not, we have legitimately supported our views. You haven't. What we are left with is the continued undertone in your writing that, somehow the U.S. and other nations are on equal footing. Somehow Bush is less trustworthy than Saddam. Somehow we have to change the culture in the region to protect our future, which will require making them love us, which, of course, will require dead Jews and the end of Israel. You have to justify your thoughts because to support them generally puts you in the position of supporting hatred and intolerance of Jewish people. You've avoided saying this and you are still finding a way to write that without saying it so you don't come off as a bigot. But, don't hide brother, let your true self be seen.

The ONLY way we can alter the region for a lifetime is to kill the Jews. Even then, we'll eventually develop alternate forms of energy and won't need oil and they'll hate us again because we won't be supporting their economy. But, you are coming off as if you might not mind a little Jew frying for the sake of of it. That's what I believe about you. The reason you have to justify your points is because absent justification, the only logical thing anyone can believe about you is just that. But, hey, I keep getting the feeling you don't really mind that deep down.

[Art]

APB,

Your other post I'll reply to as well....

"I can't handle you people."

That much is very clear. Perhaps if you were a bit smarter on this topic you'd be better able to hold your own.

"1. Redman, how can I be accused of making no suggestions while at the same time proposing a "do-nothing attitude." Weak."

Did you just really ask how making no suggestions is a do-nothing attitude? You are clearly against war which you agree you are for since it's justified. Got that. You are clearly for assassinating Saddam, which you are against because it'll make him stronger. Got that. You are so full of contridictions you don't even see how making no suggestions is a lot like hammering the world "lockbox" over and over for Gore during the run for President. You have no ideas, so you want to do nothing. Absent suggestions, your only idea is what the other guy thinks is wrong. Surely you see that having nothing to add to the conversation in terms of what we should do absolutely embraces doing nothing.

"3. Will war create more 9/11 terrorists? Maybe. Will war stop all 9/11 terrorists? No. That's my point. "

Again, the essential truism. So, since it won't stop all 9/11 terrorists it's bad. Of course, doing nothing won't stop 9/11 terrorists either, right? So, let's weigh things here.

We do nothing, which is the closest you are coming to an idea, except for assassinating Saddam, which you have said will cause thousands of fundamentalists to rise up and inspire more terrorism, so, I'm thinking you still favor the nothing thing. I favor dropping bombs. In your do nothing scenario, we don't stop all 9/11 terrorists, and, we don't stop any. Not a single one. In my scenario, we don't stop all 9/11 terrorists, but we do stop one. One of those pocket fundamentalists that will rise up and attack us will be dead. So, in my idea, we'll stop something. In yours we'll do nothing. I still like mine better.

The point can't be here to devise a way to stop all 9/11 terrorists. That's not in our power. We're not ever going to be fully safe from events like 9/11. However, we can be more safe from events worse than 9/11 if we take out leaders that would possibly assist those terrorists with weapons of mass destruction to use for their next attack. I'd liken the situation to having a bunch of guys with knives hating on us and that sucks. But, then a guy with a lot of guns is hating on his and he might just give those guns to those guys with knives. That'd be bad. So, let's destroy lots of those guns and see if we can't limit our exposure to something worse than what's already happening.

No one's claiming it's a perfect world, man. A perfect world would be one where the most powerful nation in the history of the world is loved for being the only most powerful nation in the history of the world not conquer -- or attempt to conquer -- the rest of the world through use of arms. In an imperfect world we are left to decide between imperfect solutions. Yours is we do nothing, all the 9/11 type terrorists live, receive funding from Iraq, and eventually dangerous weapons to really hurt us, and mine is to destroy as many of those weapons and 9/11 type terrorists as we can luck out and hit with bombs. Again, my idea seems just so much better than yours.

Now, if Iraq wants to hand over everything without the use of bombs, I can dig it too. But, I'm not the moron who seems to still think that's possible.