We must expect the worst, and hope for the best. c.i.
Much is made about Turkey's supposed harm to the American war plan.
A) Turkey is not responsible for America's war plan.
B) This war harms Turkey's economy, political stability and they have had to deploy troops to contain the logistical problems this war causes for them.
C) America does not need Turkey to open up a second front.
D) Turkey did not ever support the notion of invading Iraq and this is their prerogative.
When Turkey's position became clear, we rejected further negotiations, said the aid package was no longer on the table and that they had missed their chance.
We could still have opened up a second front, but we chose to start the war without preparing this front.
Allowing foreign troops to stage an attack on a neighbor from your soil is not a light matter. When the war in question is one your citizenry does not support it is a no-brainer to reject proposed participation.
Any weakness in the war plan is then the responsibility of the ones waging the war and making the plans.
perception wrote:Frolic wrote:
Quote:
At the base camp of the Fifth Marine Regiment here, two sharpshooters, Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, 28, and Cpl. Mikael McIntosh, 20, sat on a sand berm and swapped combat tales. The marines said they had little trouble dispatching their foes, most of whom they characterized as ill-trained and cowardly. "We had a great day," Sergeant Schrumpf said. "We killed a lot of people.... We dropped a few civilians," Sergeant Schrumpf said, "but what do you do?" [In one incident], he recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down. "I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."
Do you have proof of this terrible allegation? If not you should be banned from this forum for printing this insult.
This isn't the first and it wont be the last disgusting comment of US soldiers in Iraq. All recorded or written down by the embedded media.
How about this from the Sunday Times?
"The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy . . . Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi. No, I won't get hold of one. I'll just kill him.
CdK, I think the primary logical flaw stems from holding to the notion that States are the prime geopolitical operators. No longer is this the case, either politically or financially. A State which harbors or endorses Terrorism abets a stateless enemy of peaceable States, thereby participating, often at the remove of proxy, in the assault of terrorism upon peaceable states. The existing structure of international laws and social mechanisms is incapable of dealing adequately with the threat. There is a new paradigm. The ideology of a State is immaterial, appart from as that ideology condones, supports, encourages, or undertakes terrorism. The ideology of terrorism is that which must be eradicated. A regime providing sanctuary to or employment of terrorism is intolerable, and such refuges must be eliminated. The role of nations is no longer what it has been, and a border or a flag cannot be allowed to provide sanctuary for the vermin which use the openness and freedom of civilization to prey on it. Ideally, this would be a task for the UN. That body has abdicated responsibility in the matter.
CNN had somebody from the Christian Science Monitor on just now. He said not only that one surprise has been that Saddam's troops haven't used chemical weapons thus far, but also that really, from now on it's too late for them to do so. Not just b/c of having to explode them in the middle of the city, but also b/c in fact, with the wind and the small area left, currently it wouldnt be effective anymore. Any of the military experts among you able to comment on that?
nimh, From my humble perspective, the opinions offered by the CSM does not make sense. For one, Saddam's military has protection gear for WMD's. For another, Saddam doesn't care about the Iraqi civilians. He'll continue to use them as human shields. c.i.
Maybe there is a simple explanation for this not using his WMD. The same reason why the US hasn't used Superman, X-man and Batman on the battlefield.
That's a fairly good guess, nimh; areosols depend on wind strength and direction for effect. Neither favor Iraqi employment of aerosols in the immediate environs of Baghdad at the moment. That to do so would be tactically unwise or innefective may not matter. The Iraqi command structure may be so damaged that no effective order to deploy them can be issued and carried out.
A good article in the Guardian. Too long to post here, except the link, for those interested.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,927712,00.html
c.i.
serious now.
Chemical and Biological weapons are not worth using on a vigilant enemy. You have to use them out of the blue. Secundo, Saddam knows he would put his worldwide support at risk. Especially in the Arab World.
frolic, that too is a valid observation.
Don't forget, Saddam started those oil fires to polute the air around Baghdad, without any military effect. There's no way of telling what he would do with chemical and biological weapons when he sees his own demise staring him in the face (if he isn't already). c.i.
William Arkin, a much quoted and listened to military analyst and commentator, was on Talk of the Nation just now. I'm sitting in my office, the radio is on (and staticky) on the other side of the house, in the kitchen. Cannot quote directly. But he seemed to be reporting on troubling atrocities -- quite a few of them -- committed by "coalition" forces (actually, I think he said US), none of which, he said, have appeared so far in the US press. Some obviously have been reported -- vide Frolic's posts, above. Haven't got time at the moment, but I think we really should go looking for confirmation in reliable non-US media. Not only are such actions costing lives in a horrible way, they will have an enormous impact on our reputation and make a big difference in how this operation is perceived inside Iraq and in the rest of the world. This is a time for Americans NOT to unite behind the president, but to question, question, and question and make sure reliable information is printed and seen in this country. It seems things are being done in our name which none of us wants anything to do with. At the very least, we should not go forth in the world naively and argumentative, not knowing what the rest of the world knows about us.
c.i., that points out the chief difficulty of dealing with unpredictable madmen ... they're just so mad and unpredictable
cicerone imposter wrote:Don't forget, Saddam started those oil fires to polute the air around Baghdad, without any military effect. There's no way of telling what he would do with chemical and biological weapons when he sees his own demise staring him in the face (if he isn't already). c.i.
Those oil fires are not only poluting they work. Not for the air assaults but for the groundwar. The UK Soldiers in and arround Basra want them out because its very hard to have a complete overview when the surrounding of that pit and the sky is filled with black smoke.
For one, Saddam's military has protection gear for WMD's.... Cicerone...
But we do too. Do we therefore have and intend to use the weapons? Or did I misunderstand you, Cic?
timberlandko wrote:c.i., that points out the chief difficulty of dealing with unpredictable madmen ... they're just so mad and unpredictable
I wouldn't call him a madman. Just like Hitler, Stalin,.. he has a weird view of the world but he is not mad in the sense he makes senseless and unpredictable moves. The way he regained trust from the Shiah population, the way he reorganised his forces after a coup,... Every step he takes is well thought trough.
frolic, I read that same article in the NYTimes on the 29th and was sickened by it. But soldiers must have that attitude, right? Or they would lie awake at night in their tents staring at the ceiling, wondering and analyzing. And soldiers who are trained to kill dare not allow themselves to think too much.
Did you read the article I linked in a few pages ago from the Arab News? The one I said we would not see on FoxNews? Pretty much the same thing as the above.
