V (if I may call you that)
That is one of the great unanswerables...how would a Gore administration have responded to 9-11. Various folks, I understand, have a fixed opinion one way or the other, but it's an impossible thing to know, of course. But...the result would NOT have been this ugly damned mess.
blatham wrote:Re apologizing for patent lies by politicians because it is common...not a chance. Call the buggers on it every time, or you're a lousy citizen. Especially, for gods sake, on a whopper of this magnitude on an issue this serious.
A) I don't recall apologizing for anyone telling any lies. Perhaps you should bone up on your reading comprehension and then go over what I've written here again.
B) Yes, I'm sure that you think anyone who disagrees with you is a "lousy citizen".
blatham wrote:I suspect he may be remembered by some in that way, but I won't be one of them if this political decision is the subject under discussion. Recall, if you will, his own statement that if Britain went along with the US, then that was, in effect, preventing the US from acting unilaterally. For that statement alone he deserves a pie in the face every day for the rest of his life.
I'm guessing "unilateral" must be given a different meaning in your dictionary than in mine. Or is it a Canadian thing?
Snood,
Sorry for the delay in answering your question, but I've been away for several days. Timber's remarks are similar to those I would have made, had I been around. The meeting, I believe, was held to make final arrangements, discuss the usefulness of continued attempts to prod the UN into effective action, and make a final review of policy decisions to insure that everyone was on the same page. Of course, now the question is OTE.
The Scud-B has a range of 300Km, and exceeds the allowed range for Iraq. There are three Scud derivatives (scuds altered, or manufactured, by Iraq), all of which have unpermitted range capability. Deployment of scuds (or scud derivatives) into western Iraq would be insane if they did not have the capability of striking Israel. These are some of the weapons that the inspectors never found. We can only hope that they will carry conventional HE warheads, and not biological or chemical agents. For what its worth, I think that the US ability to deliver counter-battery fire is much better than it was 12 years ago. The result should be that no launcher will ever fire more than one missile before destruction. Unfortunately, that may mean that Israel is struck many times because Saddam probably has a pretty fair number of launchers in his arsenal.
The protracted delays have given Saddam ample opportunity to perfect his defenses, and prepare to meet our forces. What I, and some others, regarded as an optimal time schedule has come and gone. By discarding the northern front from Turkey, we've greatly simplified the defensive problem as well. Each of these factors have increased the risks, and almost certainly will result in far greater casualties than if we had acted sooner. In so far as the pacifist crowd has been successful in postponing the action, they must bear responsibility for those lives that will be lost due to the delay. It will do no good to say that the NCA must bear all the responsibility because they have chosen to resume hostilities after 12 years of cease fire violations by Iraq. This war is necessary to insure the stability of the region, and the security of the world. There isn't just one reason for fighting there, now. There are many reasons, and so far as I can determine all of them are good, well-intentioned, and justified by the facts.
I expect that the operation will commence within 72 hours, weather permitting. I also expect that there will be some surprising, perhaps astonishing developments in the coming days. I expect that Iraqi resistance will cease rather quickly, and that Allied troop reductions will begin by the end of July. I'm an optimist with great faith in the capability of our armed forces.
Asherman - On the issue of Iraqi resistance... I heard a report on FoxNews (I don't know whether this has been verified elsewhere, so everyone can take it as a rumor for now) that yesterday or the day before some British troops were holding live-fire exercises near the Kuwait-Iraq border, and a group of Iraqi soldiers, upon hearing the weapons-fire came across the border and tried to surrender. The Brits had to send them back, telling them it was not time to surrender yet.
I sure hope it is true, because it is just too good a story.
tres i read that same story but it was in the Washington TImes as an editorial. unverified.
dys - Well that makes two unverified sources. Thanks.
Tartarin
Interesting article. Thanks.
It looks like the latest tactic goes like this: We didn't support a Bush-driven war in Iraq (despite all the propaganda). So now we'll be won over by supporting the troops. If we don't, then we're betraying them. The cynism of this is sickening.
OF COURSE we support the predicament the troops are in. They didn't create this mess. They're the pawns of their governments. Just as the people of Iraq are victims of it & of their dictatorship.
But this strategy to gain our support for a war in Iraq will not work. We don't want a war & don't want our troops to be used in this way. It's wrong. That simple.
We don't want this war & we don't want our troops to be involved in something so wrong & immoral.
Tres
Your posts above are disappointly mean of spirit.
Go ahead and disagree with me and others, but at least give your readers a break and add a touch of humor or something a little entertaining to the grumpiness...
But we'll still support them. Vietnam isn't going to happen again.
I can't provide links yet, but there are reports of major Iraqi desertions/defections in Kurdish-controlled areas,. It would appear both Regular Army and Militia troops are involved. Rumored numbers range from dozens to many hundreds. Verification is iffy at this point. As to the Iraqis who wished to surrender to the Brits, several wire services are carrying the story, and it seems to be credible. There are also reports of arrests and other nastiinesses going on in the Iraqi Army, involving fairly high-level officers.
Not much e-mail from the area at all tonight.
Saddam will surely have an escape plan. You wouldn't expect him to have survived this long without one.
Could we have the situation where one side declares war, and the other side doesn't show up? Lets hope so.
Wilso
Saddam? Ha, he won't be there when the bombs are falling. He'll be some place else, safe.
It'll be the innocent people who suffer (yet again!) & die.
It's jusy outrageous how they are considered mere "collateral damage".
Exactly, msola!
Saddam and his so´ns wont wait until they die by the attacks nor do they want to get captured at all.
So, this problem will still be - only we will have some thousands of deaths and the US gets their oil.
blatham wrote:Tres
Your posts above are disappointly mean of spirit.
Go ahead and disagree with me and others, but at least give your readers a break and add a touch of humor or something a little entertaining to the grumpiness...
You might consider the possibility that I did not find your statements to which I replied to be all sweetness and light. You accused me of supporting lies and I did no such thing. You then implied that anyone who did the thing you accused me of was a "lousy citizen", which of course is the same thing as calling me one.
So, I am sorry if I responded with a
wee bit of sarcasm to your pleasant, cordial comments that I am a lousy citizen who likes it when his leaders lie. Now that I think about it, why on Earth would that bother me?
But please don't sweat it Bernie, I may respond a bit harshly when I feel provoked, but I don't hold a grudge, and suspect you didn't intend your comments to come out as they did. :wink:
Interesting opinion of an Iraquian dissident, too late however, in today's Guardian:
Quote: The US administration was clearly panicked by the prospect of a peaceful disarmament of Saddam. They are fearful of the prospect of seeing the Iraqi people taking on the tyrant and his dictatorial state.
Whose interests at heart?
Walter
A very interesting article on Australia, in your earlier link. Too true! Too horrible to contemplate.
Gotta go watch the 7 pm news now ...Will read the Guardian article later.
Tony Blair has been hit by another ministerial resignation as he prepares to ask MPs to back "all means necessary" to deal with Iraq.
UK Health Minister Lord Hunt of Kings Heath follows in the wake of cabinet minister Robin Cook, who quit on Monday because he objected to military action being taken against Iraq without a fresh UN mandate.
BBC link
Guardian: Blair hit by second resignation
