← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · N.B. Forrest
Thread ID: 5798 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2003-03-25
2003-03-25 09:32 | User Profile
"It is evident that it's going to take awhile to achieve our objective," the president said on his return to the White House Sunday from a weekend at Camp David. And then he added that he could assure the American people "that this is just the beginning of a tough fight."
Yes indeed.
**Yet the war on Iraq was not sold to the American people as a tough fight. It was sold to them as a combination of a walk in the park, an essential operation to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, most of all, as a crusade to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of President Saddam Hussein.
The curious thing is, almost none of them appear to be want to be saved.**
[url=http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030324-101930-3031r]http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200303...24-101930-3031r[/url]
2003-03-25 10:42 | User Profile
Even if Shrub pulls it off, it was still a crazy risk.
I spent my professional life in the business world, and I tend to think in business terms.
Imagine a company where CEO saw an opportunity to make the company a pile of money, but which involved enormous and unquantifiable risks and a few illegalities to boot. In the process of implementing the deal, the CEO alienates the company's business partners and suppliers by breaching their contracts and treating them like dirt, puts thousands of workers' lives at risk, and breaks a few laws along the way. Even if the CEO executed perfectly and pulled off his manuevre, if I were a stockholder I'd be demanding his head. There the company would be with a pot of money but with angry business partners, sullen workers, and facing unquantifiable risks of serious blowback in the future. Hitting a jackpot is nice, but prudence is a virtue necessary for the company's long-term survival.
Shrub undertook a clearly illegal action that risks WWIII. Even if he pulls it off and pumps Iraqi oil fields dry, it was an insanely risky move. He destroyed the trust our closest allies - especially France and Germany - had in us to abide by international law. He shattered any emerging trust of our former enemies, the Russians, who now have to assume that this whole thing is aimed at them and their emerging petroleum economy. He implicitly gave China (and the rest of the world) moral carte blanche to ignore international law whenver it feels the urge. He ran up enormous expenses that we can't even comprehend - this on the backdrop of staggering budget defecits and the gargantuan retirement costs for Boomers looming 7 years out. He got a bunch of American and allied soldiers killed, not to mention the hundreds of innocent Iraqis killed or wounded or driven from their homes.
And the sheeple cheer. Amazing.
Walter
2003-03-25 10:48 | User Profile
"To me, the Balkans are not worth the healthy bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier." --Otto von Bismarck
Worth listening to (requires RealPlayer):
[url=http://www.freedomsite.org/r-free/realserver/rf61.ram]Paul Fromm - War with Iraq, freedom and Israel[/url]
November 6, 2002
2003-03-25 16:25 | User Profile
Ed,
You make some fine points. I myself was floored when the $75,000,000,000 figure was trotted out yesterday, as if it was 75 cents, and that was for only one month of fighting!!
What if it goes on for six or more?
Some idiot made the point that most of that 75bil would be spent here at home, creating jobs, blah, blah, blah. The thing is, most of that is going to a very few sectors of the economy and in very few hands. What a coincidence.
Also, I'm sure all the other Arab nations in the region cannot be watching without a sense of apprehension, especially Iran, the closest neighbor and, funnily enough, the next on the "Axis of Evil" hit parade. I wouldn't be surprised if they get involved, maybe not directly, but I'll bet they put aside their long feud with Iraq long enough to insure the U.S. will be too bled dry to continue its Middle East tour on behalf of Israel. They'll probably provide just enough materiel and aid to keep Iraq hanging on by its fingernails, but not fully realize victory. It's a win-win situation for them if the U.S. is badly mauled, but Iraq is also so weakened that Iran can take what it couldn't in the 1980-88 war with relative ease.
In regards to some of the Iraqi tactics hinted at in the article, I was of the opinion that they had learned their lesson in '91. Since they fought a war on our terms and got hammered, why should they do the same again? I cannot really believe it, but it seems that that is exactly what Rummy & Co. were expecting. Also, a potential hole card is the so-far MIA Iraqi air force. Last time it was annihilated on the ground mostly and even when used, was deployed in easily-destroyed dribs and drabs. I think this time, there's going to be a mass attack. It may be a one-way trip, but they're going to try and make it count. It also wouldn't surprise me if some of it hasn't quietly been moved into Iran for safekeeping and future use. Also MIA for now are Iraqi SAMs. Think they're saving them for something special as well? The missile attacks in Kuwait have the feeling of probing shots, or jabs, designed to keep the troops on edge and test the defenses set up in the region.
We're living the intereting times that Chinese fella wished upon us.
2003-03-25 17:16 | User Profile
Did you see the topography of the area around the bridge where 10 Marines were killed trying to RE-take it? It was an open area with no buildings or structures to hide in, yet the Marines had 10 KIAs and 40 wounded. Geez, all the military acronyms spouted by Fox News military analysts can't put lipstick on this.