War on Iraq?

[epeemike81]

I apologize for my tardiness of entry into this debate. I'm sure many of you were wondering why such an oppinionated and liberal person as myself hadn't posted yet (Inq., Edew).

okay, so here is my take on it:
The case has NOT been made. it is as simple as that. 355 may be right that it is impossible to make the case to the people, due to security concerns. however, the case has not been adequately made to our allies (save one) or to much of the legislature. In addition, though he is now toeing the line, Powell doesn't seem too sure about it either. If Bush can't convince our allies, the legislature or his own Sec. of State, I don't see how we can take his word for it.

Also, he has killed his credibility by calling for inspections, and then saying they were irrelevant when Hussein aquiesced. he is pushing for war, and when Saddam yields, he pushes harder to assure that war occurs.

I am surprised that I haven't seen anybody point out the obvious yet (note: I skimmed the thread, so if I missed it and it is there, I'm sorry): This is all about oil. We have a president who is a shill for the oil industry, and he would love nothing more than to install a nice friendly gov't in Iraq which would give good deals to American oil Co.'s....

As for the Israel thing, and I know this is digging somewhat far back: Loch, though the Messianic tradition does have something to do with Zionism, it is a relatively small factor. to truly understand Zionism, you must realize the extent to which Jews were persecuted in europe for the last thousand years (without even going into early christian and pagan antisemitism). One tenet of Zionist theory is that with the creation of the state of Israel, the Jews who remain in the Diaspora would be subject to less anti-Semitism. Clearly, there is a flaw in this theory. Just thought I'd mention it, as you kind of made it sound like the messianic tradition was THE point of Zionism, which it isn't.

-m

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by veeco
No, your world is a mess. Not mine. Seek therapy.


I like China because they make great tasting food.

You're hilarious, man. Short, concise, and hilarious!!

Which reminds me of a theory I've been developing: The military ability of a company is inversely related to the quality of its food. Let's look at history:

The French: Regardless of how you like or dislike them, they've got great food - and routinely get their butts kicked.

The Italians: Same as French.

Russians: Horrible food (except, perhaps, to Russians), but an awesome military.

Germans: Are they really known for their cuisine? Yet they continue to do a lot of the butt-kicking in Europe.

The Brits: Having been invaded (and having occupied) France so many times, you'd think some of the cooking might have rubbed off. But no, we still get things like Black Pudding. And yet, they once ruled a large portion of the world.

Americans: We've got a good military, but it's a hybrid: Air Force, Army, Spec-Ops, etc. And what food can you truly call American? Hamburgers and hot dogs? German.

The Chinese: Their food is alright, but best in that it's easy to make (and consume) en masse. Same with their military - they're decent, but the real advantage is having millions of soldiers.

I could go on, but I think I won't.

[veeco]

Originally posted by Swordsman
You're hilarious, man. Short, concise, and hilarious!!

Tis' hard to type with a splint... That's why I'm being concise right now

Originally posted by Swordsman

Which reminds me of a theory I've been developing: The military ability of a company is inversely related to the quality of its food. Let's look at history:

I don't know. Tastes change a lot from people to people. I don't find French food "all that".
On the other hand, the Romans where known for their err... "refined food" and their army was pretty strong. Of course now no one in their right mind would qualify "sow's ears in raspberry jelly" a treat. But at the time it was all the craze, I guess.

Macedonian food's pretty good too, and Alexander the great was one of the most successful conquerors...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
I apologize for my tardiness of entry into this debate. I'm sure many of you were wondering why such an oppinionated and liberal person as myself hadn't posted yet (Inq., Edew).

Now the Triumvirate is complete, or,

"When shall we three meet again/ In thunder, lightning, or in rain?"

The case has NOT been made. it is as simple as that.

My first question, as always in this debate: What WOULD "make the case" for you?

At present, around 53% of the American people are in favor of military action against Iraq. Our Republic makes major decisions based on electoral margins as thin or thinner than that. So you are one of those who has set the bar higher than most---how high, and why? And without putting too fine a point on it, CAN a case be made which would convince you, or are you one of those who need a mushroom cloud marked "Made by Saddam"?

I heard a Congresswoman interviewed on "Charlie Rose" one evening who assumed what seemed a very reasonable position on the issue. She is Nancy Pelosi, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, thus privy to more information than we are ( though less than others in the Administration, I'm sure ). She said that no intel that she'd seen had convinced her that Saddam was a danger warranting war; and as she is an "insider" I was within an ace of being convinced, even though she IS a politician and a Democrat, ie part of "the opposition Party" at the moment. But then she was asked what I have asked: what WOULD be adequate justification? Her answer: convincing proof not only that Saddam HAS---not almost has, or is assiduously developing, but already has---both a nuclear weapon and a missile delivery system capable of reaching US targets and demonstrable evidence of Saddam's intent to use same against us momentarily. That, IMO, is placing the bar way too high, and gambling much too closely with millions of lives. I mean, how do you get evidence of a dictator's "intent", for one thing?

So, that we may gauge the extent of your skepticism, what would YOU like to see intelligence-wise, if you were a highly-placed government official "in the loop"?

however, the case has not been adequately made to our allies (save one) or to much of the legislature.

Two, actually: the UK and Israel.

But to be exact, that should read "adequately to convince our allies far enough to persuade them that it should take precedence over their other national interests"...which for instance to a lot of Arab nations means "not enough to risk ticking off our own fundamentalist groups by supporting the Zionist-loving American Devils against another nominal Muslim Arab", because their leaders all remember what happened to the Shah and to Sadat. To others it means "not until you give us a few concessions on other matters that we want" or "not as long as our potential for trading with Iraq is threatened". To still others, it's "not until we are higher up on Saddam's list of potential targets than we are at present". And so on.

Have a look at this BBC article,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2240570.stm


and check out especially Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, Russia and Australia. Spain has also been sending some quietly supportive messages.

So the worst that can be said, I think, is that the Administration has not yet convinced allies to support action publicly. Which is not exactly the same thing as real opposition, even in the world of diplomacy.

In addition, though he is now toeing the line, Powell doesn't seem too sure about it either.

There are two pretty good reasons for this one. Firstly, Powell actually has a Doctrine named after him, one to which almost the whole of the American military establishment with the experience of Vietnam behind them has come to subscribe...and which the proto "Bush Doctrine" of preemption is in clear opposition and threatens to replace. Secondly, and closely related to the first, is the truism that generals always tend to "fight the last war".

I've been reading news articles suggesting that this may be what's going on, not only with Powell but with other top military brass. Wish I could remember where they are---I'll have a look later on, if you'd like. They say things such as "So-and-so goes to the Pentagon with this or that innovative idea or strategy, and Gen. Tommy Franks ( who has a reputation for being "extremely cautious"), just says something to the effect of "no, no, you need three armored brigades and blah, blah, blah". And "The military insists that we'd need 200,000 troops, we talk them through point by point and get the estimate down to 80,000, and 2 weeks later the Pentagon has ratcheted the figures back up to 120,000 on its own".

That, plus the extremely pessimistic warnings we got from the military before the Gulf War, the hand-wringing over the prospect of taking on "the world's fourth-largest army" or whatever it was at the time, make me wonder what some of in the military are thinking.

Lastly, some generals are simply reluctant to fight even an easily winnable war that must be fought. Remember General McClellan of US Civil War fame?

Also, he has killed his credibility by calling for inspections, and then saying they were irrelevant when Hussein aquiesced. he is pushing for war, and when Saddam yields, he pushes harder to assure that war occurs.

That is one possible interpretation, indeed. Another, though, is that he's merely trying to establish a stronger base for negotiating the eventual terms of inspections than the UN managed to wrest out of Saddam last time. Trying to scare him into making greater concessions, in other words, by zealous sabre-rattling and apparent obstreperousness. Saddam is not after all a man who has responded well to mild diplomacy and attempted compromise in the past. Perhaps Bush believes, rightly or wrongly, that he understands only credible threats...

I am surprised that I haven't seen anybody point out the obvious yet (note: I skimmed the thread, so if I missed it and it is there, I'm sorry): This is all about oil. We have a president who is a shill for the oil industry, and he would love nothing more than to install a nice friendly gov't in Iraq which would give good deals to American oil Co.'s....

Perhaps because it's a little TOO obvious. In all candour, I think that any conclusion that gets jumped to by so many people so quickly ( and this is as you say a pretty common claim ) is bound to be suspect---probably in such cases the real truth is several layers of complexity farther down than this.

Of course, conspiracy theories are a favorite of us Americans. We distrust our leaders, and we like to think we have them figured out: they're all tools of some dark force in the background. The "military-industrial complex". The "upper class" ( or it's modern variation of choice, the wicked "top 1%" ). The Trilateral Commission. The Forces of Globalization. Or in this case, the Oil Industry.

But this is a bit simplistic, don't you think? Not to mention fallacious reasoning, being a form of the argumentum ad hominem, circumstantial.

Let me quote from Pirie's arch book, "The Art of the Fallacy", a very condign example:

"A variant of the fallact dismisses a person's views as representing only their special circumstances. It assumes that an oil company executive can reflect only his corporation's interest when he voices an opinion on the future of energy supplies. In the first place, the executive may well have independent views which differ from those of his company. In the second place, there is nothing to say that the corporation view is not the correct one, self-interested though it may be. The fallacy arises in this version by the wanton dismissal of possibly relevant material..."


In other words, not only is "Bush is just a shill for the oil industry" assuming facts not in evidence and making an unproven and probably unprovable allegation, it also does not attempt to show that "oil interests" in the matter are necessarily wicked, wrong, or inadmissible as reasons for taking out Saddam, even if the allegation COULD be shown to be true...or for that matter that it is the ONLY reason he has to want Saddam out.

Finally, I might argue---indeed, I WILL---that if it were really only "all about oil" we would not be gearing up against Iraq. Iraq's oil reserves are only the world's second largest known ones. Number one is Saudi Arabia, a country with a negligible military and the convenient fact of most of the 9-11 terrorists hailing from there, together with the official staus of radical Wahhabist Islam and the repressive nature of the royal regime. Were Bush really only interested in getting his hands on more oil, it would have been child's play to dig up or concoct evidence of Saudi complicity in the attacks---heaven knows Saudi rhetoric post 9-11 was helpful enough in that regard. And not only would that have gotten the Saudi oil fields, installed a democracy in place of a totalitarian regime, and cleaned out a nest of terrorist support, but it would have provided a clear example to Saddam: yield, or you are next...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
My first question, as always in this debate: What WOULD "make the case" for you?

I agree with some of my colleagues on this board that WoMD are NOT nearly as urgent an issue as Bush is trying to make them. we have been worried about attempts by Iraq for a decade now, how did it all of a sudden become urgent? what changed? In addition, if that is the reason, don't you think we should at least TRY inspections?

So, what WOULD make the case..... Good evidence that they are supporting al Quaeda. Remember, at the beginning of this, it all started with the contention that they were. When evidence was requested, all of a sudden the focus shifted to weapons inspections, when Iraq acquiessed to them, all of a sudden inspections would do no good.

At present, around 53% of the American people are in favor of military action against Iraq.

This is a HIGHLY suspect number. most of the polls I have seen have well below 53% supporting military action. Ultimately, poll numbers are ALL highly suspect on both sides. Anecdotally, it seems to me as though the vast majority of people are against taking action on the current evidence

Two, actually: the UK and Israel.

Actually, Israel has NOT expressed support, but merely indifference. Independantly, they have stated that they will retaliate if attacked. Iran is actually MUCH higher on Israels hit list, since they are more active in the training of Palestinian militants than Iraq is.

But to be exact, that should read "adequately to convince our allies far enough to persuade them that it should take precedence over their other national interests"...which for instance to a lot of Arab nations means "not enough to risk ticking off our own fundamentalist groups by supporting the Zionist-loving American Devils against another nominal Muslim Arab", because their leaders all remember what happened to the Shah and to Sadat. To others it means "not until you give us a few concessions on other matters that we want" or "not as long as our potential for trading with Iraq is threatened". To still others, it's "not until we are higher up on Saddam's list of potential targets than we are at present". And so on.

Again, I would like to point out that whatever national politics are at play, when you can't convince one of our closest allies (Germany), it isn't worth doing. Now before you claim that Germany's position was based on internal politics, the position was based on the facts. The INTENSITY of the position greatly increased during elections, but the basic position was based on facts.

There are two pretty good reasons for this one. Firstly, Powell actually has a Doctrine named after him, one to which almost the whole of the American military establishment with the experience of Vietnam behind them has come to subscribe...and which the proto "Bush Doctrine" of preemption is in clear opposition. Secondly, and closely related to the first, is the truism that generals always tend to "fight the last war".

So, now you have adequately identified that Powell's position was based on experience. What is Bush's based on??? after all, the military (experts) are telling him don't attack, his Sec. of State (expert) are telling him don't attack.... where are his positions coming from?

I've been reading news articles suggesting that this may be what's going on, not only with Powell but with other top military brass. Wish I could remember where they are---I'll have a look later on, if you'd like. They say things such as "So-and-so goes to the Pentagon with this or that innovative idea or strategy, and Gen. Tommy Franks ( who has a reputation for being "extremely cautious", just says something to the effect of "no, no, you need three armored brigades and blah, blah, blah". And "The military insists that we'd need 200,000 troops, we talk them through point by point and get the estimate down to 80,000, and 2 weeks later the Pentagon has ratcheted the figures back up to 120,000 on its own".

Articles from what sources? I'm sure you could quote tons of conservative sources, and I tons of liberal ones, but that doesn't really solve much, does it?

Lastly, some generals are simply reluctant to fight even an easily winnable war that must be fought. Remember General McClellan of US Civil War fame?

What does the Civil War have to do with an easily winnable war?

Trying to scare him into making greater concessions, in other words, by zealous sabre-rattling and apparent obstreperousness. Saddam is not after all a man who has responded well to mild diplomacy and attempted compromise in the past. Perhaps Bush believes, rightly or wrongly, that he understands only credible threats...

just out of curiosity, could you define greater concessions than unrestricted full access to all facilities, including presidential palaces? Whether or not you believe that he will follow through with that, it IS what he promised. Thus, there can be no greater concession gained.

Perhaps because it's a little TOO obvious. In all candour, I think that any conclusion that gets jumped to by so many people so quickly is bound to be suspect---probably in such cases the real truth is several layers of complexity farther down than this.

Of course, conspiracy theories are a favorite of us Americans. We distrust our leaders, and we like to think we have them figured out: they're all tools of some dark force in the background. The "military-industrial complex". The "upper class" ( or it's modern variation of choice, the wicked "top 1%" ). The Trilateral Commission. The Forces of Globalization. Or in this case, the Oil Industry.

Don't get me wrong: this is NOT a conspiracy theory. I don't think the oil industry is behind it, I DO, however, think that GW has the mentality and interests of an oil executive, and that installing a friendly government in the nation with the second most oil in the gulf would allow us to play hardball with the nation with the most oil: Saudi Arabia.

In other words, not only is "Bush is just a shill for the oil industry" assuming facts not in evidence and making an unproven and probably unprovable allegation, it also does not attempt to show that "oil interests" in the matter are necessarily wicked, wrong, or inadmissible as reasons for taking out Saddam, even if the allegation COULD be shown to be true...

Facts not in evidence????? his campaign was funded by the now defunct Enron and lets not forget that he is a former oil executive. Also, look at his other policies. he will ALWAYS side with big business, though you do have to respect the logic of a position like "No forest, no forest fires."

Finally, I might argue---indeed, I WILL---that if it were really only "all about oil" we would not be gearing up against Iraq. Iraq's oil reserves are only the world's second largest known ones. Number one is Saudi Arabia, a country with a negigible military and the convenient fact of most of the 9-11 terrorists hailing from there, together with the official staus of radical Wahhabist Islam and the repressive nature of the royal regime. Were Bush really only interested in getting his hands on more oil, it would have been child's play to dig up or concoct evidence of Saudi complicity in the attacks---heaven knows Saudi rhetoric post 9-11 was helpful enough in that regard. And not only would that have gotten the Saudi oil fields, installed a democracy in place of a totalitarian regime, and cleaned out a nest of terrorist support, but it would have provided a clear example to Saddam: yield, or you are next...

see above. we have a working relationship with Saudi Arabia. We already have a lot of input regarding those reserves. Iraqi reserves we do NOT.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
I agree with some of my colleagues on this board that WoMD are NOT nearly as urgent an issue as Bush is trying to make them. we have been worried about attempts by Iraq for a decade now, how did it all of a sudden become urgent? what changed? In addition, if that is the reason, don't you think we should at least TRY inspections?

The usual reason given is that the 9-11 attacks changed the way we view the world and made us less inclined to overlook potential threats in the future. In other words, we were asleep before, and now we are awake to the realities of the perils we face. We have been shaken out of our complacence. So it is not that anything has changed, the threat was there all along, we simply did not see it---and now we do, and are no longer inclined to wait for the next blow, especially when it could be so much more horrific if Saddam reaches his goal...

I DO think we should try inspections. But not the sort Saddam "dances a little sidestep" with so well. Enforced inspections with, as I may have said before, a Ranger battalion and half a dozen Apaches right behind the inspection team, and the first half-hearted attempt by an Iraqi guard to deny access to anything gets him and all his fellows shot or arrested and the inspectors go in anyway. "Palaces" included. But Saddam is not about to agree to that...

So, what WOULD make the case..... Good evidence that they are supporting al Quaeda.

Following up---what constitutes "good", in your view? Something beyond the testimony of Saddam's son-in-law defector, the satellite photos of the probably training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad, the videotapes of Al-Qaeda nerve-gas tests conducted in Northern Iraq, and Rice's statement that some prisoners at Guantanamo confirm that Al-Qaeda received assistance in efforts to develop CB weapons from Iraq? ( These are just the ones I've read, in public sources---I'd think it strange if these were all there were. )

Remember, at the beginning of this, it all started with the contention that they were. When evidence was requested, all of a sudden the focus shifted to weapons inspections, when Iraq acquiessed to them, all of a sudden inspections would do no good.

You don't buy Fouad Ajami's reasoning that even if there is no documentable direct linkage "The regime in Iraq is an example to other Arabs of the efficacy of terror", then, I take it?

This is a HIGHLY suspect number. most of the polls I have seen have well below 53% supporting military action. Ultimately, poll numbers are ALL highly suspect on both sides.

Well, it's like Churchill said about democracy: "It's the worst method there is---except for all the others".

We have to measure public sentiment somehow. Polling may be an inexact science, but it's better than "my friends all say", no? And much better than just letting our political leaders decide that they have a "mandate", with no evidence at all, and do it their own way...

Anecdotally, it seems to me as though the vast majority of people are against taking action on the current evidence

I'd say we're hearing differenct anecdotes. From those I talk to, both in person and in fora like this one ( in most of which Iraq is the topic of the day ) the 53% figure seems about right---just about evenly divided, at any rate, with a slight if unquantifiable leaning toward agreement. Add a Congressional mandate and support rises still more; with UN and allied support it goes to very high levels.

But to some extent we're probably "hearing" those who agree with us as more "numerous", on a subjective basis...

Actually, Israel has NOT expressed support, but merely indifference. Independantly, they have stated that they will retaliate if attacked. Iran is actually MUCH higher on Israels hit list, since they are more active in the training of Palestinian militants than Iraq is.

I think they have been supportive. I'll look into it, but that's been my impression for some time. There has to have been public statements one way or the other which can be dug up.

As for Iran, I'm sure Israel doesn't like them much, either. But they have never bombed an Iranian nuclear reactor under construction, and Iran has not fired 38 SCUD missiles into Israel that I can recall. I suspect they are realists, and worry about both. And they've fought wars against multiple Arab states at once, so it isn't a matter of either/or...

Again, I would like to point out that whatever national politics are at play, when you can't convince one of our closest allies (Germany), it isn't worth doing.

You must know the story there. Germany suffers from "World War angst", and has become extremely, almost pathologically, averse to military actions. It is also still trying to recover economically and socially from integrating East and West after the end of the Cold War. And then there is the matter of politics---their recent elections turned on anti-Americanism.

What bothers me most about the Germans, albeit I understand it to an extent, is that they are so unwilling to support us in what we have determined is a matter of our security interest after 50 years of us supporting THEIR security interests with---HOW many American troops and HOW many trillions of dollars?

Anyway, one cannot say "if you can't convince the Germans it isn't worth doing", IMO. They have differing national interests.

Was the Cuban blockade ( a preemptive act of war and quite unilateral ) not worth doing? Better if we'd had Russian ICBM's in Cuba for the last forty years?

I suspect there are any number of quite worthwhile things that we've done in which the Germans did not concur.

Now before you claim that Germany's position was based on internal politics, the position was based on the facts. The INTENSITY of the position greatly increased during elections, but the basic position was based on facts.

Which facts? You mean popular German opposition to military action? The opposition of the German media ( which it might be argued created the public opposition )? The German electee was playing to sentiment with his "refusal to provide any troops", when we hadn't ASKED for any, and by letting his Minister get away with comparing Bush to Hitler---and even then, his victory was tenuous at best. It may not last out the year.

So, now you have adequately identified that Powell's position was based on experience. What is Bush's based on??? after all, the military (experts) are telling him don't attack, his Sec. of State (expert) are telling him don't attack.... where are his positions coming from?

Some other generals. And civilian Cabinet members ( the sort of people, in other words, who are supposed to make the grand decisions in our Republic ). And region experts. And intelligence people. And of course his own ideas---this is what Presidents are supposed to do, after all. Even those with no personal military experience. ( And remember what generally poor jobs former generals turned politicians have done as Presidents historically. )


Moreover, no one ( except a few retired generals with careers based on bookswriting and public speaking ) are telling him "don't attack". At most they are saying "Don't attack just yet, let us have more time to prepare, and BTW here are our estimates of costs, both casualty and monetary, we think they may be higher than you believe". That is the job of the military: Give all the information and advice they have, then leave the final decision to the---Commander in Chief...

Articles from what sources? I'm sure you could quote tons of conservative sources, and I tons of liberal ones, but that doesn't really solve much, does it?

If they are factual presentations, and not op ed pieces, it might. The facts are neutral, only attempts to interpret them are partisan---if the preponderance of evidence comes down one way or another, who presents them doesn't much matter. It's the conclusions each of us draw from them that counts in the end.

However, I think the ones I was reading were relatively straightforward ones, from respectable news sources, not "hit pieces" or punditry. I'll track them down---I think I know where to find the links again. They were quite interesting. It might not be until after Orlando, though ( have I mentioned the trouble I have keeping up with you speedy typists, what with my laborious one-fingered hunt-and-peck method? ).

What does the Civil War have to do with an easily winnable war?

It was estimated that the North probably would have won major victories and thus ended the Civil War much sooner had McClellan not sat on his hands and refused to move. Eventually Lincoln had to relieve him in favor of generals who "would fight". The thesis is that his ( McClellan's ) reluctance protracted the war by several years and thousands of additional lives at the least.

just out of curiosity, could you define greater concessions than unrestricted full access to all facilities, including presidential palaces? Whether or not you believe that he will follow through with that, it IS what he promised. Thus, there can be no greater concession gained.

That "promise" lasted, what? All of two days? Then the temporizing and the mind changing and the "my representatives overspoke" games began again. At last reports the "palaces" were off the table again...

Don't get me wrong: this is NOT a conspiracy theory. I don't think the oil industry is behind it, I DO, however, think that GW has the mentality and interests of an oil executive,

OK, I can agree with you on that. We all behave and think in accordance with our backgrounds, training and experiences. I'm sure he DOES think like an oil man, at times and to an extent. And certainly oil figures in the equation; there is a reason why it's recognized by every nation as a strategic resource. But none of us are all one thing, and I do not think that there has been any evidence whatsoever rising to the level of demonstrating that Bush is ONLY "a shill for the industry" or that his animus against Saddam and his actions against Iraq are ONLY "about the oil".


It just seemed to me that from the way you couched the argument that you were iterating a conspiracy theory of sorts. All those loaded words and all...doubtless just for dramatic effect. Glad that wasn't the real gist of your argument.

and that installing a friendly government in the nation with the second most oil in the gulf would allow us to play hardball with the nation with the most oil: Saudi Arabia.

Time draweth short for me tonight, so I'll just note ere I leave off that if that were in fact Bush's prime motivation I'd have thought that his father, who is cut from the same oil cloth, would have done it after the Gulf War. Instead he withdrew, and took control of NO Iraqi oil for the US, and was foremost in calling for the oil-sales embargo, and fought the "oil for food" loopholes later...

And---I must go. More anon....

[Inquartata]

Finishing up from yesterday ( as if that screed wasn't too long by half as it was ):

Originally posted by epeemike81

Articles from what sources? I'm sure you could quote tons of conservative sources, and I tons of liberal ones, but that doesn't really solve much, does it?

OK, here they are---one from the Washington Post, another from
Radio Free Europe:

From a piece by Jeffrey Donovan, full story here: http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2...62002174228.asp



"the Joint Chiefs of Staff have reportedly asked Bush and other key officials to postpone any military action against Iraq, if not, in fact, to can the idea altogether.

Their concerns touch at the very heart of U.S. military policy since the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 1970s.

That U.S. military leadership came out of that conflict, in which it lost thousands of soldiers and came under severe public criticism, bitter at what it saw as constraints put on its operations by politicians in Washington.

As a result, a policy known as the "Powell Doctrine" emerged. Named after its chief proponent, current Secretary of State Colin Powell, the doctrine says that no war should be fought unless it has the full backing of the American people and government and provides the military with the ability to use overwhelming force
against its enemy to achieve a swift and complete victory at a minimum cost. A clear "exit strategy" must also be in place.

Flournoy said that while the U.S. military has had some success in following the Powell Doctrine, it has also been put into conflicts by government leaders that did not meet up to the policy's requirements, such as the failed U.S. intervention in Somalia in the early 1990s. And for as much as they can, Flournoy said, the generals do not wish to repeat such experiences. "I think the military tends to take a very conservative view. They want to be absolutely sure, given their experience in Vietnam and Somalia and elsewhere, that they conduct missions for which there is strong and firm political support. They do not want to get out front of public opinion, and frankly even international opinion, on many issues," Flournoy said.

Pollack concurs. "I think that the opposition within the Pentagon is serious. I think there really are questions about whether we want to pay the costs and run the risks of regime change in Iraq," Pollack said.


Finally, there is the State Department, which has a history of tense ties with Iraq's main opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC. The State Department is seen as lacking confidence in the INC, and has expanded its contacts to include a wider range of opposition groups in a move that some analysts say may marginalize the INC's London-based leadership, which has some supporters in the U.S. Congress.

The INC's credibility problem underscores the point made implicitly in the proposals of the Joint Chiefs Staff: An Iraqi war cannot rely on indigenous opposition forces.

But Pollack said the State Department's reluctance to embrace an Iraqi war also derives partly from another consideration: The war would become America's overriding foreign-policy initiative for at least a year, if not several years.

In that light, the State Department's various efforts -- seeking peace in the Middle East, helping Russian democracy, engaging China, forging a new relationship with India, fighting AIDS in Africa -- would become minor priorities compared with the monumental task of war and its aftermath." ( Emphases mine, and I threw in that last part about resistance from the State Department as an extra )

Then there is this, from an article in the Washington Post ( full story at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...1¬Found=true )


"Some civilians in the debate worry that military planners consistently call for more troops in every plan because they lack an appreciation of how technological advances have improved the military's offensive capabilities since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. "The issue is, our capability to do severe damage to the Iraqis is very different today than it was 10 years ago," said Dennis Bovin, a member of the Defense Science Board and other Pentagon advisory groups. "We have a lot more options available than ever before."

In the debate, civilians have urged military planners to consider approaches radically different from the half-million-strong force that the United States deployed against Iraq during the Gulf War. The current favorite of those backing a smaller, faster approach is a lightning strike involving narrowly focused airstrikes combined
with a sprint of armored vehicles from Kuwait to Baghdad. The thinking is that such a movement of just a few days would not permit Hussein to hide his forces in cities or to trundle his artillery pieces to the northern bank of the Euphrates and then to fire shells, possibly including chemical weapons, at U.S. forces trying to cross that broad river.

In addition, several other "bolt from the blue" approaches are being discussed behind closed doors and studied in war games. "There are a lot of out-of-the-box options, very few of which have gotten into the public eye," said one Pentagon consultant. The Special Operations Command in particular has suggested some "tactically innovative" approaches that combine "precision strike and information dominance," said a Pentagon official.

Yet no matter how innovative the suggestions, the planners at Central Command seem to weigh them down with conventional thinking that would prolong both the preparations for any attack and the war itself, according to people involved in the process. That command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, is headed by Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who has a reputation in the Pentagon of being extremely cautious.

"They've had these ideas for months, but they keep on going back to Franks with them, and he says, 'No, no, you need three heavy divisions and an air assault division' " -- that is, a backup force of about 60,000 troops -- as insurance in case a smaller attack falters, one defense official said. The overall force considered in one plan earlier this summer would have involved around 100,000 troops, he said.

In follow-up meetings, pointed questioning by senior civilian officials cut the overall number of the notional attack force to 68,000, the official added. Then, he said, "two weeks later, the Army has pushed it back up to 120,000."" ( Emphases mine )

Facts not in evidence????? his campaign was funded by the now defunct Enron

What, Enron alone? Or do you assert that (a) a politician automatically becomes the puppet of any corporation or private donor who contributes to his campaign, and if so (b) how can a man serve two masters? I.e., if he gets equal contributions from the steel company and the construction industry, each of which want the price of steel to go in a different direction, which will win out if he has zero free will merely because they gave him some money?

and lets not forget that he is a former oil executive.

Are you advancing the proposition that once you work for a company or an industry you become their creature for life? That ever after you will slavishly pursue their goals to the exclusion of all others, that you will surrender any beliefs and opinions of your own and adopt theirs instead? Or is it that you think this is true only of Bush? And if so, why?

This is a bit too deterministic for me. People are certainly influenced and shaped by their experiences, but whom one works for scarcely seems to me the primary source of any individual's weltanschaaung. I believe that people---even politicians---can rise above the narrow parochial interests they may serve at one point in their life when their constituencies and their responsibilities transcend those for which they once worked; that they can change their minds and their actions and their goals; that there is free will that greater responsibilities can alter the way we behave.

Also, look at his other policies. he will ALWAYS side with big business,

With the degree of clairvoyance that would allow a person to make a sweeping judgement about the inner workings of the mind of someone he hasn't even met, a person could doubtless get very rich in short order by hanging around on Wall Street or a courthouse or the Capitol...

But seriously, given the conflicting nature of the goals of businesses in a competitive economy, there is simply no way to "side with business". To act in the interest of one industry is to harm three others. And it is also a bit reductionistic, I think, to engage in such stereotyping as to assume that there is any such thing as a monolithic "big business" with clear shared goals and a shared set of goals. "Big business" is nothing more than the sum total of the individual men and women who own and run the thousands of disparate companies. Even at the very top, there are at once men like Ken Lay and George Soros, the late Armand Hammer and the late Steve Forbes, Warren Buffet and Ted Turner, and the list of opposites in political views goes on and on. Yet all of these sharp contrasts are supposed to disappear when it comes to broad public policy and cutthroat competition is supposed to yield to amicable unity of purpose when the drafting of tax law and regulatory conditions and the like come up?

Sure, there are certain VERY broad things that are considered "good for all business": things like stabilility, a strong legal system, a good supply of labor, low inflation ( though even that doesn't favor all industries ). But these are SO general, and so nearly beyond the control of politicians at any level, that it is next to meaningless even to mention them...

see above. we have a working relationship with Saudi Arabia. We already have a lot of input regarding those reserves. Iraqi reserves we do NOT.

Certainly we do! The Iraqi regime has stated numerous times that it is willing to grant favorable consideration to American and other Western oil companies, drillers, distributors, etc. if only we will lift the sanctions. And Saddam would I am sure be very forthcoming economically if we would only give Iraq the sort of "relationship" we have with Saudi Arabia.

The point is this: if we are only "interested in controlling the oil", we ought to be reversing our treatment of these two nations---conquering the militarily weak and resource rich one and allying ourselves with the militarily strong and resource rich one.

[DJ Apostrophe]

Now that the house and senate have approved a motion allowing Bush to use force against Iraq it shouldn't be long now before the first tomahawks are headed to Baghdad . . . How long of a conflict to people think this will be? do you think it will end up being a full fledged gulf war II or is it going to stay smaller scale with tactical strikes? Should be interesting to see where this goes. . . I figured eventually dubya would take a page from his fathers book. Particularly that chapter entitled 'what to do to jumpstart a flagging economy'... just my thoughts

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by veeco
Tis' hard to type with a splint... That's why I'm being concise right now



I don't know. Tastes change a lot from people to people. I don't find French food "all that".
On the other hand, the Romans where known for their err... "refined food" and their army was pretty strong. Of course now no one in their right mind would qualify "sow's ears in raspberry jelly" a treat. But at the time it was all the craze, I guess.

Macedonian food's pretty good too, and Alexander the great was one of the most successful conquerors...

I love Japanese food, and I can think of nothing bad to say about their military - if it existed. I'm not especially fond of French food, but they did have an empire at one point, as well. And let us not forget Napolean. And German food is just awesome.

No, I wasn't being especially serious, and of course everybody's tastes are different. But if you go with what is considered stereotypically good or not, and the general unedumecated impression of historically effective or ineffective militaries, then it's funny. Well, from here I guess it doesn't sound so funny. But whatever.

[Swordsman]

My new position on this thread: "What he said."

No reason for me to keep posting on here when you get across everything I would argue, Inq, and much more concisely, more securely backed up, etc.

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

Reminder to both sides debating here: We don't live in a democracy.

[swordsen]

hmmm all I know is that if the war starts (when the war starts) my school is going to need a long term substitute who can teach spanish, history and fencing. sigh. why didn't this happen two years ago when I was unemployed?