Vietnam 2 --- Preflight Check

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

Cabal of oldsters who won't listen to outside advice? Check.

No understanding of ethnicities of the many locals? Check.

Imposing country boundaries drawn in Europe, not by the locals? Check.

Unshakeable faith in our superior technology? Check.

France secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.

Russia secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.

China secretly hoping we fall on our asses? Check.

Sec. Defence pushing a conflict the Joint Chiefs never wanted? Check.

Fear we'll look bad if we back down now? Check.

Corrupt Texan in the White House? Check.

Land war in Asia? Check.

Quite unhappy with outcome of previous war? Check.

Enemy easily moves in/out of neighboring countries? Check

Anti-Americanism up sharply in Europe? Check.

B-52 bombers? Check.

Helicopters that clog up on the local dust? Check.

In-fighting among the branches of the military? Check.

Locals that cheer us by day, hate us by night? Check.

Local experts ignored? Check.

Local politicians ignored? Check.

Locals used to conflicts lasting longer than the USA has been a country? Check.

Against advice, Prez won't raise taxes to pay for war? Check.

Blue water navy ships operating in brown water? Check.

Use of nukes hinted at if things don't go our way? Check.

Unpopular war? Check.

[andyfox]

Untruths and illogic daily from our government? Check.

Blank check given to president at the get-go by congress? Check.

Manichean worldview, we're all good, they're all bad? Check.

Domino theory invoked? Check.

Reporters being harrassed? Check.

Diasaster for the United States and the country being invaded? Hopefully not check.

[Ray Zee]

and the financing of this one trillion dollar extravaganza---your check

[Parmenides]

Long term disaster? Check.

In reading about the history of Islam, it becomes clear that Jihads last a very long time. The Shiite/Sunni split has been going on for over 1300 years.

I predict that Bush will invade Iran after he invades Iraq.Iran has oil.

Bush will never invade North Korea. They have no oil. The terrain is tough, and they've already accounted for 35 thousand American dead the first time. He might nuke them, however.

[Jimbo]

Mamasans--- no check
Cheap prostitutes---no check
Jungles to hide in---no check
Monsoons---no check
Rice Paddies---no check
Democrat in the White House---no check
Good Dope---check


Well there is one thing in common with Nam! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[brad]

jim jim jim. (sigh)

the cheap prostitutes come *after* the war starts.

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif get out the old beach boys album...roll up a joint...protest marches..sit-ins...peeing on pentagon...hey...bring back the sixties...far-frigging out /forums/images/icons/grin.gif man..

[BruceZ]

Of course there are also some significant differences:

Iraq poses a direct threat the security of the US. Vietnam did not.

Iraq posesses or is actively seeking to posess biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons. Vietnam did not.

Iraq is associated with terrorists who are at war with the US. Vietnam was not.

Iraq is in violation of its terms of surrender from a previous war. Vietam was not.

The Iraq war is our war. The Vietnam war was not.

Iraq is a threat to its neighboring countries. Vietnam was not.

Iraq controls natural resources crucial to the US. Vietnam did not.

Iraq is severely weakened from a previous war which they lost to us. Vietnam was not.

The vast majority of Iraqi soldiers will not fight and will quickly surrender. Vietnam soldiers certainly did not.

The US now posesses modern weaponry such as bombs so precise that they can choose which window of building to fly into, conventional bombs which exceed the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and stealth B2 bombers to name just a few. In Vietnam we did not.

The war in Vienam raged on for over 15 years. The war in Iraq could well be over in 15 days.

There is one potential similarity between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war. In Vietnam, dissension at home against the war placed our troops in the field at great peril. If vocal dissension continues after the decision to attack is made, this will also be true in Iraq.

[WTF]

Checkmate

[Tom D]

We can pay for that with all our new oil.

Tom D

[BruceZ]

Manichean worldview, we're all good, they're all bad?

No, just Saddam, his family, and those who would keep him in power. Let's see...hanging people in pools of acid until they are skeletons, torturing children in front of their parents, picking up beautiful women off the street, gang raping them, and feeding them to tigers...Yeah, I'd say they're a little worse than most of us.

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
There is one potential similarity between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam war. In Vietnam, dissension at home against the war placed our troops in the field at great peril. If vocal dissension continues after the decision to attack is made, this will also be true in Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard this said before, usually by people who don't like to hear dissenting views, but I have to admit I've never understood how dissent puts troops at peril? Is it because it causes the politicians at home to lose resolve (e.g., not bomb Hanoi?) I don't think we have to worry about that in this case. I can't imagine Dubbya losing his resolve.

[BruceZ]

I've never understood how dissent puts troops at peril?

It is bad for morale; it can cause them to lose their resolve to fight. They have plenty of adversities already, why should they bust their butts fighting a war for the people at home who don't even appreciate it? It can also cause politicians to become indecisive, and to fail to take the actions necessary to bring the war to a swift conclusion. An extreme example are the British human shields who chained themselves to Iraqi targets. A general stated that the value of the targets would now have to be "weighed against the risk of civilian casualties", hence compromising the war effort. As far as I'm concerned, those who give aid and comfort to the enemy in times of war are the enemy, and should be given no consideration.

I felt this way about the first Iraq war before I heard anyone else state it, that regardless of whether you think the war is right or wrong, once the war begins, we must support the actions necessary to actually win the war and bring it to a swift conclusion. The ability to dissent is what makes this country great. I believe that there are extreme situations in which the dissention itself also makes this country weaker, as evidenced by some of the compromised policies concerning counter-terrorism, and also during times of war. I agree with Bill O'Reilly when he says that those who continue to voice dissension after the war begins are "bad Americans". Dissension won't stop this war, but it just may prolong it or cause it to be more costly in human lives.

[MMMMMM]

I wonder what kind of protesting will be going on if terrorists get their hands on Saddam's WMD and unleash them massively in this country.

After enough biological attacks maybe the current U.S. peaceniks would also be screaming for war.

Terrorists cannot be appeased or reasoned with. Allowing rogue regimes with terrorist ties/sympathies to develop and stockpile WMD is a sure recipe for disasters on the scale of the Black Plagues in Medieval Europe--or worse.

[brad]

'After enough biological attacks maybe the current U.S. peaceniks would also be screaming for war.'

youve hit the nail on the head M.

now juxtapose this with story about iraq ordering american uniforms.

think about it.

add in operation northwoods.

think.

add in people in power like kissenger who deal in straight power concepts.

seriously, what do u thin?k

[andyfox]

If there are terrorist attacks now, the administration will certainly have to answer questions about how their policies may have made our country less safe rather than more so.

At one time, Egypt and Israel were implacable enemies and had gone to war regularly. Israel was led by two men who had made their mark as terrorists: Begin and Shamir. Egypt was led by a supposedly light-weight military man, Anwar Sadat. The peace they made has lasted many years now. If this teaches us anything, it's that negotiation is always possible.

[andyfox]

"I agree with Bill O'Reilly when he says that those who continue to voice dissension after the war begins are "bad Americans". Dissension won't stop this war, but it just may prolong it or cause it to be more costly in human lives."

I strongly disagree. Those who would stifle dissension are bad Americans. Because our government decides on a policy doesn't mean it is correct or effective or moral. And even when it is, many Americans may not think so. What makes us a great country, among other things, is the ability to criticize our government when we believe it is in error. In Vietnam, our government invaded the country, deliberately killed civilians, and lied about every aspect of the war from beginning to end. Those Americans who pointed out the immorality and deceit were good Americans.

If we lose the ability to dissent, what are we fighting for?

[Boris]

"I agree with Bill O'Reilly when he says that those who continue to voice dissension after the war begins are "bad Americans". "

well [censored] you too.

[MMMMMM]

I think we better beat the terrorists and control the rogue regimes before they deal us horrific destruction, and I don't think it has anything to do with a US-sided conspiracy.

It is also obvious that the Islamists are openly conspiring to attack the West indefinitely. Therefore we must deny them WMD as much as possible.

[andyfox]

You make some good points, but many of the things you say Vietnam was not were used by out government as arguments in favor of that war as well:

Iraq poses a direct threat the security of the US. Vietnam did not.

-Our leaders always said the security of the United States would indeed be directly threatened by a Communist victory in Vietnam.

Iraq is associated with terrorists who are at war with the US. Vietnam was not.

-Our government told us that it was only Communist terrorist tactics that made the population of Vietnam support them.

Iraq is in violation of its terms of surrender from a previous war. Vietam was not.


-We were told that North Vietnam had violated the Geneva conventions.

Iraq is a threat to its neighboring countries. Vietnam was not.

-The domino theory was often invoked as a reason for supporting Vietnam.

Iraq controls natural resources crucial to the US. Vietnam did not.

-There were many internal discussion in Washington about the importance of raw materials in Southeast Asia to the American economy.



The vast majority of Iraqi soldiers will not fight and will quickly surrender. Vietnam soldiers certainly did not.

-We were also told that there is no way those little yellow men in pajamas would fight.

The US now posesses modern weaponry such as bombs so precise that they can choose which window of building to fly into, conventional bombs which exceed the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and stealth B2 bombers to name just a few. In Vietnam we did not.

-We were always told that "precision" bombing would do the trick. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all countries combined did in World War II.

The war in Vienam raged on for over 15 years. The war in Iraq could well be over in 15 days.

-We were always told that victory was just around the corner in Vietnam.

[MMMMMM]

I'll bet that al Qaeda's stance, however, is non-negotiable.

There is a difference between "moderate" Muslims and true Islamists. There is hope to to reach peace or ccomodation with the former.

One problem however is the tacit support by "moderates" for the ideology and actions of the "fanatics." The "fanatics" have the upper hand ideologically speaking because what all those countless imams are preaching, in their preaching of "radical" Islam, is backed up by the literal Islam of the Koran. For various reasons: religious, cultural, and somewhat out of fear, many "moderate" Muslims do not condemn acts of terror. And of those who do, many "moderates" condemn the deeds of terror, but do not condemn the groups dedicated to terror. It's doublespeak, just as when many Mideast Arabs say they condemn the 9/11 attack yet admire al Qaeda, won't condemn al Qaeda.

The Egypt/Israel peace accords are a good example. If only all Arabs were as rational as Egypt's government showed itself to be. Unfortunately, al Qaeda isn't and never will be.

[MMMMMM]

The cited instances of what we "were told" back then weren't all true. However in looking over this list I think it's pretty obvious that we're not just "being told" many of these things today: they are true. Most Iraqi soldiers will surrender. We do have far more precise bombs. Oil is more important than whatever raw materials were in Vietnam. Iraq, with WMD, poses a more drastic potential threat to regional (or possibly US) security than some slow theory of dominos. Afghanistan was pretty quick and Iraq will probably be even quicker.

So just because our government told us these things way back then and they turned out not to be true, doesn't mean they aren't true now. In fact for most of those things listed I'd say the difference is obvious and substantial.

So what if our government told us that decades ago regarding Vietnam? This is regarding Iraq, today.

[brad]

perhaps u missed the bbc reporting that all 'ira' bombings carried out since 1980 were really carried out by british army intelligence.

perhaps u missed northwoods.

perhaps u missed ted koppel covering blueprint for attacking attack (and citing need for 'pearl harbor type event') written in 1999 or so by neocon thing tank including rummy and cheney.

perhaps you missed those.

perhaps u r just naive.

i choose to believe that rather than the alternative.

[Jimbo]

Brad wrote "perhaps u missed the bbc reporting that all 'ira' bombings carried out since 1980 were really carried out by british army intelligence." Yeah Brad, I think we all missed that report!

[Easy E]

" I agree with Bill O'Reilly when he says that those who continue to voice dissension after the war begins are "bad Americans". "
In a word- bulls***

"Dissension won't stop this war, but it just may prolong it or cause it to be more costly in human lives. "
If people running a war are making decisions after it started, based on protests anywhere, then either
a) they are bad war leaders or
b) the war shouldn't have been started in the first place.

... but that's why soliders abhor politicians during a battle...

[Phat Mack]

We won't have to write a check. They'll just inflate the economy by creating a trillion in new money. That's how LBJ and Nixon did it. Buy real estate.

[brad]

of course that was an opinion of mine supported by numerous facts.

i cant help it if you dont know about stuff like this.

but heres one fact.

http://www.sundayherald.com/29997
----------------------
However, court documents leaked to the Sunday Herald show that Magee, head of the IRA's infamous 'internal security unit', was trained as a member of Britain's special forces. The IRA's 'torturer-in-chief' was in reality one of the UK's most elite soldiers.
------------------------

[brad]

http://www.sundayherald.com/17827

SECURITY forces didn't intercept the Real IRA's Omagh bombing team because one of the terrorists was a British double-agent whose cover would have been blown as an informer if the operation was uncovered.

http://www.sundayherald.com/25646

KEVIN Fulton is very clear about where the orders were coming from. 'I was told that this was sanctioned right at the top,' he says, sipping a Pepsi in the bar of a Glasgow hotel. 'I was told 'there'll be no medals for this, and no recognition, but this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows what you are doing.'
This was 1980, and if Margaret Thatcher knew about the activities of military intelligence agents such as Fulton, then she was also aware her own military officers were planning to infiltrate British soldiers as 'moles' into the IRA. These moles were ordered by their handlers to carry out terrorist crimes in order to keep their cover within the Provos so they could feed information on other leading republicans back to security forces.

[brad]

this time you were right jim!

you missed it!

[MMMMMM]

OK, I missed those things. But you CAN'T miss the Muslim militants, the Islamists, saying they intend to attack and destroy us all.

[brad]

well chinese generals have said the same thing.

[Jimbo]

Very interesting link Brad. I love it when you supply a link that disproves your implications. Got any more?

After all you did say "perhaps u missed the bbc reporting that all 'ira' bombings carried out since 1980 were really carried out by british army intelligence." This hardly proves all or for that matter even more than a few were BAI officers. You also left out in your original post that they had infiltrated the terrorist organization as British spies not as terorist leaders with a noble cause. Brad why do you intentionally misled so often? Is it that you merely skim an article then months later recollect what sounds controversial then start typing? So confusing!! /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

[brad]

no i said it was an opinion supported by numerous facts, those which i cited being just a couple.

what did nixon do? did he come out and say he was a crook? no he denied it and tried to whitewash it.

tell u what jim. look up joseph stiglitz on google (who won nobel in economics) and tell me what he had to say about imf/world bank and argentina. you tell me.

p.s. i was right about there being a plan to tax drivers by the mile via gps. the fact that it hasnt been implemented yet doesnt make me wrong. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Jimbo]

Brad when you state something is being done or used NOW and it is not that does in fact make you wrong even if it occurs in the future. Is that so hard to understand? Here is an example: You bet and raise all the way and at showdown you declare aces full but when you turn over your hand you have a 7/2 offsuit. Just because you may have pocket aces sometime in the future doesn't make your hand a winner in this pot! Ante up and deal Brad ! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[brad]

i said it was being done now in limited areas (downtown london i think i read) and plans for the US.

the reason i stressed currently being done is to show that it is feasible and real and that these plans are real.

well anyway in ten years we'll know for sure.

at least that whole microchip thing turned out to be a hoax as well as the 2 cent rfid chips that will be in all products as inventory control.

i was starting to get worried!

luckily that dna database thing was exposed as a fraud when it was learned that theres no such as dna it was a conspiracy theory.

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So what if our government told us that decades ago regarding Vietnam? This is regarding Iraq, today.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[MMMMMM]

So, a skeptical eye may be well warranted. That still doesn't change the things which seem rather obviously true, or very likely to be true, in this list. Nor does it make them any less likely.

[WTF]

"...you declare aces full, but when you turn over your hand you have 7/2 offsuit."

The board 7-2-A-A-A. What's the problem? Aces full.

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/mad.gif and the fish...

1,2,3 what are we fighting for

don't ask me, i don't give a damn

my next stop is

viet nam


be the first on your block
to come home in a box....

whooopee we are all gonna die.....

1,2,3 what are we fightin' for.....

no lie man... /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/club.gif

[MMMMMM]

What may have applied well to Vietnam decades ago doesn't necessarily apply well to Iraq today. And that's putting it mildly.

[IrishHand]

you CAN'T miss the Muslim militants, the Islamists, saying they intend to attack and destroy us all.

When I played basketball, people occasionaly told me they were going to kill me. Surprisingly, I never felt the urge to firebomb their houses. Somebody saying they're going to do something, and having the ability or actual inclination to do so are completely different things - a fact you choose to ignore repeatedly in your references to jihads and fatwas.

[Ray Zee]

anytime they create inflation its the same as taking that money directly from your pocket. no difference, except for those that have assets that go up in inflation. fixed income elders get it in the shorts, and younger people trying to get a rung up on the ladder of success. those with lots of money and hard assets tend to do well sometimes. if inflation is severe with higher interest rates then property values go down as it takes higher payments to buy it.

so instead of that check they just pick your pocket. we cant win i am afraid.

[MMMMMM]

Investing in real estate can be risky even if it's just country land. I would guess investing in livestock could be far more rewarding.

[MMMMMM]

And now that I've narrowed it down to livestock, I still can't decide between those cute black-faced sheep and those gorgeous Nubian goats.

[Chris Alger]

"Iraq poses a direct threat the security of the US" and "is a threat to its neighboring countries" although "Iraq is severely weakened from a previous war" and "the vast majority of Iraqi soldiers will not fight and will quickly surrender." It takes a lot of indoctrination to not only avoid knowing about this contradiction but to also avoid seeing it after setting it down in writing. It takes a lot of wilful ignorance to say these things about a country that for 10 years has been unable to dominate its own airspace.

Here's another similarity: both wars were/are supported by zealots who would rather read of a million dead than about another country that refuses to take orders from the White House. Proof: after a million dead in Vietnam and no loss of national security despite the US defeat, the primary gripe of the Vietnam hawks was that we lost.

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/frown.gif you mean peace with honor...right around the corner.... /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

Chris, you are misleading in claiming this to be a contradiction. You go on to say in effect (and have said elsewhere) that because Iraq's military is severely weakened Iraq poses no threat to the U.S.

The threat it poses to us is that of providing terrorists with WMD, not the threat of a direct military attack on us. Now you may wish to argue that Iraq doesn't pose this threat either, but claiming that Iraq poses no threat to us because of a weakened military is clearly not the point.

[Graham]

Ah, saved me the time, Jimbo. Thought I was going to have to work on brad for this one of his until I saw your post here.

There's nothing wrong with controversy, esp here where you can get a good debate, but posting a statement with a link to an article that says nothing of the sort does tend to niggle.

[Chris Alger]

No, war propagandists constantly mix these apples and oranges. After all, Bruce said that Iraq is a regional threat, and the typical facts to support this are the Kuwait and Iran invasions. In the same breath they argue that we can war on the cheap with few US casualties -- Iraqi casualties not mattering because they are subhuman Arabs -- because Saddam's war machine is in tatters.

As for WMD, your argument is no better than the argument for invading Israel: Israel might provide terrorists with WMD that would use them against the US. It's absurd, but Israel's record of doing this is no different that Iraq's.

[Jimbo]

Chris your arguements become less coherent with every post.
As for WMD, your argument is no better than the argument for invading Israel: Israel might provide terrorists with WMD that would use them against the US. It's absurd, but Israel's record of doing this is no different that Iraq's. How many Jewish terrorists flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11 compared to the number of Islamic terrorists?

[MMMMMM]

Saddam's military is significantly degraded in the conventional sense. However Iraq still possesses thousands of tons of biological/chemical toxins. When fitted with the newer Russian engines, his al-Samoud missiles have a range of around 600 Km, far more than the 93 Km. Iraq's regional threat is more along the lines of threatening to lob missiles with WMD into neighboring countries or oilfields, which he can do even without a fully functioning conventional military. You cannot say that this threat absolutely does not exist.

Saddam has terrorist sympathies and ties, the most obvious of which are evidenced by his financing of the cottage industry of Palestinian murder-bombers. There are also links between the WTC bombing of a decade ago and Iraq.

You may choose not to believe that Iraq is now training al Qaeda in biological/chemical weapons, but it is known that Iraq is shielding certain al Qaeda members and leaders. Also, Iraq and al Qaeda both share a hatred of the USA, while Israel is a US ally. So, while you may argue (wrongly, I believe) that Iraq does not pose a significant threat to proliferate or provide WMD to terrorist organizations, you simply cannot logically say that Israel poses as much threat to the USA as does Iraq in this regard. That's absurd and I believe you know it.

It's time to get rid of Saddam and his sadistic Baathist party, provide some relief to millions of Iraqis living under utterly ruthless and horrific oppression, and to work to bring the Middle East out of the 7th century and into the 21st.

[IrishHand]

How many Jewish terrorists flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11 compared to the number of Islamic terrorists?

Now there's a genius analogy - unless of course you're prepared to argue that any follower of Islam is somehow connected to terrorism. The kind response to your lovely analysis is more along the lilnes of "How many Israeli-sponsored/-funded terrorists flew into the WTC on 9/11 compared to the number of Iraqi-sponsored/-funded terrorists?" The answer being zero on both counts, which pretty well wrecks your reponse and explains why you tried to shift the analysis from nations to religions/ethnicities. However, the topic wasn't Islam v. Isreal or anything along those lines - it dealt with the likelihood of Iraq providing terrorists with WMD.

The point that Chris was making, and the one which party-line conservatives choose to ignore, is that there is a complete dearth of evidence connecting Iraq or Hussein with either al Queda in general or 9/11 in particular. As such, the "they're a threat because they'll give weapons to terrorists" argument is completely baseless. As some other poster commented (I dont't recall who), the US is (at least based on historical precedent) far more likely to supply terrorists with weapons than most other soverign nations.

[Chris Alger]

"How many Jewish terrorists flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11 compared to the number of Islamic terrorists?"

Okay, if its just an Islamic thing then change Israel to Turkey. It's all equally stupid and racist.

[nicky g]

"Saddam has terrorist sympathies and ties, the most obvious of which are evidenced by his financing of the cottage industry of Palestinian murder-bombers. "

THere's no evidence that any money has actually been paid. The US funds the Israeli government, regardless of how it behaves, which, like it or not, kills more civilians than even the Palestinian terror groups, and in territories it occupies illegally in which normal life is crushed. You somehow think that is morally different or excusable - I don't - but then try this one: the EU funds the Palestinian authority, which you think is a terrorist organisation. And EU states have WMD! Some ar even begining to oppose US interests. So shouldn't the US go to war on the EU? Furthermore, the Pakistani governemnt has much stronger links with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism than Iraq, and has nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan are threats to regional peace, much greater threats than Iraq. SHouldn't the US go to war with them too?

"it is known that Iraq is shielding certain al Qaeda members and leaders. "

Who?

"and to work to bring the Middle East out of the 7th century and into the 21st."

US policy has been predicated for decades on keeping the Middle East backwards. It supports the feudal hellholes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (including of course that renowned democracy, Kuwait). It works against democracy in ALgeria and Egypt and supports Morrocco's occupation of Western Sahara. It undermined the modern government of Iran and had it replaced with a dictator-king. The same but worse goes for Africa.
Iraq was the only fully modernised and prosperous Arab nation of the late 20th century, aside from the political/human rights field - surprise surprise, look at what's been done to it. First a war with Iran, with the US arming both sides to weaken both sides and deliberately prolong the war to neutralise them; followed by economic warfare, massive bombardment, 21 years of crushing sanctions and now invasion.

And what's going to happen next? An invasion followed by "reconstruction", all to be paid for by Iraqi oil. So the US military-industrial, oil and construction sectors all make an absolute mint, paid for by Iraqis adn their future children. And who gets the contract? Bush family supporters, including, of all people, the fraudulent Halliburton, currently in dire trouble for inflating their profits, and formerly headed by chief cheerleader of the war Dick Cheney. ANd yet somehow you think this is all above board?

[Jimbo]

IrishHand I do not remember pulling your chain.

[BruceZ]

"Iraq poses a direct threat the security of the US" and "is a threat to its neighboring countries" although "Iraq is severely weakened from a previous war" and "the vast majority of Iraqi soldiers will not fight and will quickly surrender." It takes a lot of indoctrination to not only avoid knowing about this contradiction but to also avoid seeing it after setting it down in writing. It takes a lot of wilful ignorance to say these things about a country that for 10 years has been unable to dominate its own airspace.


Of course there is no contradiction here when one examines the issue logically as others have elaborated. Think about current vs. intended future capabilities.

As for the Iraqi lives not counting because they are sub-human Arabs (post below), that's quite a leap from anything I have said here, though not necessarily for you I suppose. For the record of course I don't believe that; however, although civilian lives should be protected as much as possible consistent with our military goals, this does not and cannot rate a priority above the security of America.

I don't know how to say this tactfully, but I'm afraid that there may be too many illogical errors and spin in your posts for me to be able to address them all or even any of them in the future. I mention this so that if I don't respond that other's will understand the reason.

[nicky g]

"although civilian lives should be protected as much as possible consistent with our military goals, this does not and cannot rate a priority above the security of America."

Is there a cut-off point on this? I mean, how many civilians should be put at risk and how small does the security threat have to be before this is no longer deemed acceptable?

[IrishHand]

Please keep your S&amp;M fantasies to yourself, and see a doctor about the Alzheimer's. Thanks.

[adios]

"And what's going to happen next? An invasion followed by "reconstruction", all to be paid for by Iraqi oil. So the US military-industrial, oil and construction sectors all make an absolute mint, paid for by Iraqis adn their future children. And who gets the contract? Bush family supporters, including, of all people, the fraudulent Halliburton, currently in dire trouble for inflating their profits, and formerly headed by chief cheerleader of the war Dick Cheney. ANd yet somehow you think this is all above board? "

Oh goody another conspiracy theory where the US military-industrial complex is the villan. I suppose it wouldn't make any difference that Cheney divested himself of his options and stock in HAL before he took office (at considerable profit). Also my understanding of the HAL problems are those related to asbestos liability. The accounting stuff is old news and has little to do with the current HAL valuation. It's also not clear that Halliburton did anything wrong in their accounting. Anyway, sometimes these theories make liberals happy /forums/images/icons/smile.gif, sometimes sad /forums/images/icons/frown.gif. This item will probably make you really mad /forums/images/icons/mad.gif, perhaps shocked /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif and maybe a bit confused /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

U.S. seeks bids to fight any Iraq oil fires
Thursday March 13, 12:08 pm ET

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030313/energy_iraq_fires_2.html

[adios]

"Is there a cut-off point on this? I mean, how many civilians should be put at risk and how small does the security threat have to be before this is no longer deemed acceptable?"

I can't give you an exact number but it's definitely less than the number of people who will die if Saddam stays in power and those who will die at the hands of his successors.

[BruceZ]

Now that's a good question. I suppose the simplistic mathematical answer is that if we assume American and Iraqi lives are equal, then the cutoff point occurs when the expected value of the loss of American lives exceeds that of Iraqi lives plus coalition military lives. This expected value would have to be summed or integrated over the probabilities of various amounts of losses due to various threat scenarios. The threat of a nuclear attack on our soil would have a certain probability and a certain loss of life associated with it. The threat of a biological attack would have a different probability and loss of life, etc. Obviously this is impossible to compute accurately and would be the subject of endless debate. Complicating matters would be the highly politically charged debate over whether an American life should be exactly equal to an Iraqi life, or whether an attack on American soil is so intrinsicially bad for emotional reasons that it has negative value beyond a simple tally of human lives. There are also economic costs, threats to countries besides America, and quality of life issues for Iraqis under the current regime. I'd like to see a politician who is willing to try and fill in the numbers in this equation, it'll never happen. I don't think we can settle it here in this thread /forums/images/icons/wink.gif On the other hand, I understand that the CIA actually used Bayesian statistics to estimate the probability of Saddam utilizing terrorists to attack the US homeland if we invade Iraq, and it came out to 85%.

[Chris Alger]

Of course there's a contradiction because you said that Iraq is a threat because it invades other countries while admitting that it can't even defend itself. Further, the notion that Saddam has evidenced any tendency to funnel WMD to terrorists after 25 years without doing so is a fantasy that the pro-war side can't come to grips with because it would reduce their ability to take advantage of 9/11. Therefore, the only argument that Iraq is a military threat to the national security of the US must take into account Iraq's conventional military capability, which is presently a shell of its ability 12 years ago when there was no push whatsoever to invade and conquer Iraq. You see further evidence of this in the Korean debacle, where we face a country that can actually defend itself: there we negotiate. So we are invading Iraq not because it is a threat, but because, as you said, its small army will roll over with relative ease. It's not because of Iraqi strength, but because of Iraqi weakness and vulnerability.

"civilian lives should be protected as much as possible consistent with our military goals"

Which is merely a euphemistic way of saying that civilian lives should be sacrficed if it furthers our military goals, which obviously include protecting US troops. Given the widespread opposition to the war in the U.S. -- unprecedented given that it hasn't even started -- we can expect the Pentagon to rely on indiscriminate bombardment of civilian areas to limit US casualties and the political fallout therefrom. Which means that the further cost of waging an unpopular war will be extraordinary civilian deaths, precisely the pattern in Vietnam after 1967. It won't have anything to do with "national security," but with limiting domestic dissent. To think that racism doesn't play a major role in this likely scenario is delusional.

[andyfox]

"I understand that the CIA actually used Bayesian statistics to estimate the probability of Saddam utilizing terrorists to attack the US homeland if we invade Iraq, and it came out to 85%."

If this is indeed the case, wouldn't an invasion of Iraq make us less, not more safe?

[brad]

actually its been all over the news that, according to 'officials', a terrorist attack is virtually guaranteed if we invade iraq.

the apologists use this opinion to reinforce their argument that the US must attack 'before its too late'.

maybe i should get on drugs so i can in tune with everybody (on the nightly news).

[Jimbo]

actually its been all over the news that, according to 'officials', a terrorist attack is virtually guaranteed if we invade iraq. Brad you left off part of the statement: or for that matter if we do not invade Iraq. Makes a lot of difference in full context, agreed?

[brad]

well their logic is a little fuzzy, but basically they say 'its not a question of if, but when', so its inevitable.

then they say that an attack on iraq will almost certainly evoke an *immediate* terrorist attack.

hey dont blame me. im going to get a presciption today so ill be zonked out and can follow along with everyone else.

[BruceZ]

Of course there's a contradiction because you said that Iraq is a threat because it invades other countries while admitting that it can't even defend itself.

I didn't say they were a threat because they invade other countries; you said that. There are 3 things here which are all very different:

1) Iraq's potential threat to other countries in the region when they further develop WMD.

2) Iraq's ability to defend itself against an attack by us currently.

3) Iraq's threat to our homeland when it further develops WMD.


"civilian lives should be protected as much as possible consistent with our military goals"

Which is merely a euphemistic way of saying that civilian lives should be sacrficed if it furthers our military goals

Another nonsequitor. See why? I can say "I'm not going to drive to the casino in a snowstorm if there are no bad poker players there anyway", and that doesn't mean I would necessarily drive through the storm if there were bad poker players there. It also doesn't mean I would drive there if there were no snowstorm and there were no bad players there.

[Chris Alger]

"I didn't say they were a threat because they invade other countries; you said that."

In your original post, you said: "Iraq is a threat to its neighboring countries." This used to be true, but only because Iraq had a record of invading them. If you think Iraq is a threat simply because it has WMD, I'd like to know how you distinguish it from Israel or any other country with similar weapons without mentioning the Iranian or Kuwait invasions..

"Another nonsequitor. See why?"

It's a non-sequitor only if it's possible for military action to avoid large numbers of civilian deaths, which requires one to assume away what every Pentagon strategists willingly concedes: a large-scale invasion or bombardment of Iraq will kill a lot of civilians. The relief agencies are telling the media that they're bracing for a disaster. So don't get coy and pretend that it isn't inevitable, or that efforts to limit that scope of the carnage make it non-criminal.

[BruceZ]

In your original post, you said: "Iraq is a threat to its neighboring countries." This used to be true, but only because Iraq had a record of invading them. If you think Iraq is a threat simply because it has WMD, I'd like to know how you distinguish it from Israel or any other country with similar weapons without mentioning the Iranian or Kuwait invasions.

Um, because its leader is a madman? His past actions make his intentions clear. Give him WMD and I don't think anyone seriously doubts he would use them to attack his neighbors.

It's a non-sequitor only if it's possible for military action to avoid large numbers of civilian deaths, which requires one to assume away what every Pentagon strategists willingly concedes: a large-scale invasion or bombardment of Iraq will kill a lot of civilians.

No, it's a nonsequitor because it implies we are going to kill any civilian that might happen inconvenience our military goals.

The relief agencies are telling the media that they're bracing for a disaster. So don't get coy and pretend that it isn't inevitable, or that efforts to limit that scope of the carnage make it non-criminal.

Criminal? By what legal theory and what set of laws? Yours?

[MMMMMM]

Bruce,

Thank you for pointing out some of Chris' logical errors in this thread (and elsewhere too).

One of the most frustrating things in some of these threads is the use of illogical arguments by certain well-intentioned posters. To the extent that you are helping to catch and bring to light such errors, it is appreciated, in the interests of clarity and meaningful debate.

[IrishHand]

Give him WMD and I don't think anyone seriously doubts he would use them to attack his neighbors.
Wait a minute! I thought your entire argument was premised on the idea that he both has vast quantities of WMD, and is also developing more. If that's the case, why hasn't he already used them to attack his neighbors? (If the reponse is because we won't let him, then (a) that would appear to justify the status quo, and (b) he didn't use the to attack neighbors before we demasculated his military.)

[Chris Alger]

"Um, because its leader is a madman?"

Yeah, just how do you distinguish Iraq from Israel by this standard?

"His past actions make his intentions clear."

Right -- past actions such as invading Kuwait and Iran, which he did with 3X as many troops, twice a s many tanks and, in the former case, US support. So it is his past actions which prove he's a threat, which make his past capabilities compared with present ones relevant, and which you insist on ignoring.

"No, it's a nonsequitor because it implies we are going to kill any civilian that might happen inconvenience our military goals."

You said we have a policy of protecting civilians to the extent it's "consistent" with military goals. Inconvenient or inconsistent, take your pick. The fact is the war will inevitably kill civilians, and the pro-war camp persistently tries to downplay this through the spurios argument that civilians aren't the primary targets.

"By what legal theory and what set of laws? Yours?"

By those of the Nuremburg tribunal, as well as Articles 2, 51, 57 and 85 of the Un Charter. We've hanged people for less.

[BruceZ]

Joint response to Irish and Chris:

As far as WMD, he has them now (likely) and/or he is developing them. If he hasn't used them yet on his neighbors, it is because they are not ready to be deployed yet, or because he knows that we will attack him if he uses them. In any case, given his history and mentality, this is not a stable situation that can be allowed to continue. These weapons can easily be handed off to terrorists to attack either us or his neighbors without being traceable to him. Continuing to surround his nation with 200K troops and occupy his country with token weapons inspectors indefinitely is not an option. Were we to withdraw our troops, he would take us and the UN even less seriously than he does now, and we would place both his neighbors and us in a very perilous situation. Sometimes even if you don't think you should have gotten involved in a pot to begin with (not that this is the case here), once it becomes big enough it becomes correct to try and win it.

By those of the Nuremburg tribunal, as well as Articles 2, 51, 57 and 85 of the Un Charter. We've hanged people for less.

And these say it is illegal for a nation to defend itself? I'll believe your interpretation when there is a successful prosecution of the US under these laws.

[nicky g]

"I suppose it wouldn't make any difference that Cheney divested himself of his options and stock in HAL before he took office (at considerable profit."

Tom, where do you think Cheney and co will end up after their terms in office? Where do you think their money will end up? Who do you think their friends are? Furthermore, we're all gamblers here - haven't you ever heard of getting someone else to place your bets when you're unabke to?

"The accounting stuff is old news and has little to do with the current HAL valuation. It's also not clear that Halliburton did anything wrong in their accounting. "

They're in dire trouble right now, whatever the rights and wrongs. THis little boost is very welcome. It's not yet proven that they did anything wrong but I would say it IS clear. You don't think it's at all bizarre that all of the corporate beneficiaries of the war either gave money to the Bush campaign, or have ex-employees in the administration, or both?

[Cyrus]

Great post, Mr Weinstock sir.

I beg to differ on a couple of points:

"Enemy easily moves in/out of neighboring countries? Check"

Better maybe un-check that one. The surrounding countries are not friendly territory. There is nothing coming in from abroad that can help the Iraqis and the Iraqis don't have the equivalent of Ho Chi Minh trails around the country. This was a crucial factor in the Vietnam war.

"Land war in Asia? Check."

Hmm. There's a world of difference in terrains. There is simply no possibility of conducting a guerilla war in Iraq outside urban areas. The land is mostly bare and wide open. The mountains in the North is the one area that could pose problems similar to Afghanistan (which is still not fully occupied). But if Turkey stays out of the picture, the locals (the equivalent of the Vietnam montagnards) will be friendly and having the Kurds on the American side will take care of that threat completely.

All in all, the Iraqi terrain is ideal for the kind of war the American military would like to be fighting today.

[Cyrus]

Good points, Andy, except for one point, which is important in the Vietnam analogy:

"Reporters being harrassed? Check."

No, the American pressmen are falling all over themselves to promote the official, "patriotic" line. During the war in Vietnam there were enough reporters around, including photographers, and enough newspaper, magazine and TV editors in the mainstream who dared to cross the official line and risk being called un-patriotic and traitors. These days we have "embedded reporting" and "protected" press corps convoys, with the journalists willingly being fed off the hand of the military.

Of course, having fewer media companies around plays a part in having less dissent, as well. (AOL-Time-Warner, who would've thought.)

[HDPM]

"During the war in Vietnam there were enough reporters around, including photographers, and enough newspaper, magazine and TV editors in the mainstream who dared to cross the official line and risk being called un-patriotic and traitors."

And the guy America trusted most, Walter Cronkite, not only risked being called a traitor, he became a traitor. He deliberately gave aid and comfort to the enemy with his false reporting on the Tet offensive.

[Cyrus]

"Good Dope?---check"

Well, that looks like one more "no check" for your list. There is no good dope to go around from all we hear in the alternative media. Good dope made a hell of a difference in Vietnam, according to published accounts and will be sadly missed from the current war.

Some good sh*t would give the soldiers, as the saying went, "perspective".

[Cyrus]

"The guy America trusted most, Walter Cronkite, not only risked being called a traitor, he became a traitor. He deliberately gave aid and comfort to the [Vietnamese] enemy with his false reporting on the Tet offensive."

I don't remember what Cronkite reported exactly but I will take your word for it.

Walter Cronkite's kind of reporting, then, and his sense of patriotism, are being sorely missed in this war. And will probably be missed in the next one as well. Americans will be the losers for it.

[Jimbo]

Cyrus, there is more hashish in Iraq than poker chips in Nevada.

[Jimbo]

"Walter Cronkite's kind of reporting, then, and his sense of patriotism, are being sorely missed in this war. And will probably be missed in the next one as well. Americans will be the losers for it. "

Cyrus this is a sick thing to say, even for you. You must be a college kid, now your posts make a lot more sense.

[HDPM]

Cronkite deliberately lied about what was happening during the Tet offensive to advance his anti-war agenda. So I don't see how his kind of reporting could be missed. He had no sense of patriotism because he was a traitor. He has no honor because he lied. The essence of journalism is to present facts. So he has no integrity, no right to pretend to be a journalist. He was simply a shill for Ho and the commies who did damage to the American war effort. I am not one who thinks that honest reporting should be shut down or that those who are anti-war are necessarily lacking patriotism or are traitors. But Walter Cronkite was a vile POS for what he did. Well, still is a vile POS traitor for what he did.

[Cyrus]

"Cyrus this is a sick thing to say, even for you. You must be a college kid, now your posts make a lot more sense."

Thank you for the compliment on my education but could you please explain about my sickness?

I happen to find honest reporting equivalent to noble. If Walter Cronkite reported the Tet offensive half as accurately as it's being implied (ie if he told it like it was), he did exactly what he was supposed to do. You want the official line, you go to the Pentagon briefing room; you want more than that, you're supposed to turn on the TV or open a newspaper. At least that's how I knew things were supposed to work -- only they are not, not anymore, and we are all the losers for it. I think.

If you find this situation a healthy one I'm truly sorry.

[Cyrus]

"There's more hashish in Iraq than poker chips in Nevada."

You just might be right in this one. I forgot that the stuff comes down from the North and that the Americans have landed there.

Did I see some paratroopers wobbling as they marched or was it just the weight of their gear?

[Jimbo]

"You just might be right in this one."

Yes I am correct about this as well as about the filthy distortions called reporting done by Cronkite.

[Cyrus]

/forums/images/icons/cool.gif " Yes I am correct about this as well as about the filthy distortions called reporting done by Cronkite. " /forums/images/icons/mad.gif

You must have access to the Iraqi stuff. Careful.