posted on September 22, 2002 10:48:50 AM new
Absolutely, twinsoft! I agree with you! Isreal needs to be defended at all costs! History shows us that the Interests of Isreal are directly proportional to the Interests of the United States! An attack of any sort against Isreal is an attack against the United States and that should be made clear to the Palistians and the other arab states. Isreal needs to make Isreal a non-arab Homeland. America nees to use it's might to push the Palistinians back to Mecca where they belong. If the arab states all love the Palistiians as much as they purport that they do, they shold welcome them with open arms, wouldn't you think? It's a litmus test of sincerity.
Isreal needs "breathing room", a no-man's land boarder of at least several miles all around Isreal in order to prevent Palisitinians and other arab terrorists from sneaking back in to be hired under the guise of cheap labor, as you said. And with Bush inthe White House, after the arabs are all ousted out of Isreal for good, we need to wipe out the mosques defacing the Holy Land and other infidel Islamic manifestations - just like the much-praised Taliban did for Afghanistan. What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander -- right? Only they don't get to choose what we want to do!
Admittedly, it is in America's best interests to defend Isreal at all costs. Although we will most ceretainly loose men and women of our armed forces, mostly in friendly fire so it's OK, we must make some sacrifices on the part of the Isrealies who are keeping Chrisitianity safe for the rest of the world! Most people already know that without Isreal in place, insane religious zealots of the Islamic faith would already have oblkitherated all traces of sacred Chrisitian places in Jeruselum and other holy shrines! We've all seen what Islam does to other religon's sacred places and symbols, if Isreal were to fall into their barbaric hands, who knows how much of Christian history would be blown up and bulldozed into non-existance? We have to do this for Jesus, and God, and of course, the Jewish God, because the heathens would destroy everything of theirs as well!
posted on September 22, 2002 08:31:31 PM new
What do you want me to say? That we can ignore Saddam? That he's not threatening America? Who cares if he blows up the Middle East in a big nuclear firebomb?
I'll repeat what I said before. You just don't care. For you the war on terrorism is merely an opportunity to whine some more about the government.
posted on September 22, 2002 08:55:46 PM new
Sadam has to be taken out, we can't afford not to take him out. His WOMD infrastructure can easily produce weapons for terrorists that will end up being used against US interests. Iran poses like problems, but one country at a time.
Pre-emption is the only way to fight terrorism and stop these nuts from obtaining these weapons.
I don't think the west should be debating Sadam's future in the UN or publicly. We're putting him in the position of having nothing to lose.
But I have a feeling that Sadam will be toppled by his own troops or ethnic factions with some aid from US air forces. We won't have soldiers in force on the ground in Iraq until after the coup or uprising. All these "leaks" about our ground and air battle plans are probably intentional and decoys.
However, if I'm wrong, that can only mean that we are reletively certain that Sadam doesn't currently have the ability to deliver to the battle field or outside Iraq any chemical or bio weapons effectively.
Israel's threat to counter-attack is also strange. If Israel felt an actual threat from Iraq, their press response would have been very general and stated that they will do whatever is necessary to defend themselves.
This leads me to conclude that we want Sadam to prepare for a ground invaision, but the toppling of his regime will come from within. A coup will come much easier if his troops are dispersed all over Iraq and awaiting certain death.
posted on September 22, 2002 11:41:50 PM new
Baloney, twinsoft - this just proves that you're soft on the Palistinian Question. You sound more and more like an Arafat supporter everytime you post. What's the matter? Talk a lot, but can't take a real stand? Pro-Isreal, until some REAL pro-Isreal talk comes around and then you start whinning like a baby? You're clearly no friend to Israel, twinsoft - you just don't have the guts to say what needs to be said. We real Pro-Israeli supporters can do without your kind.
A very short excerpt of the story which first appeared in the Washington Post and then the New York Times....
As the Bush administration moves aggressively at the United Nations and in Congress to win support for a possible military strike against Iraq, a consensus has begun to emerge among Pentagon war planners that the United States should conduct a narrowly focused but extremely intense attack that will be radically different from the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Although the planning is far from complete and remains fluid, military officials and advisers say the broad outlines of an attack against the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein are starting to take shape. They include the targets for U.S. warplanes and missiles, the size and character of the U.S. ground force, and the potential endgame of a U.S. invasion.
The planners' thinking is being shaped by a unique set of circumstances confronting the United States in the Persian Gulf region, most notably Hussein's often unpredictable behavior. There are no conclusive answers, for example, about whether Hussein would be able to use biological or chemical weapons, what Israel would do in response to an Iraqi Scud missile strike, how much of the Iraqi military would change loyalties, or whether fighting would bog down in Baghdad and other cities.
What is already clear, however, according to senior officers and others familiar with emerging "concept of operations," is that unlike the 1991 war, neither Iraq's infrastructure nor its military rank-and-file would be targeted. Instead, the U.S. military is thinking about how to execute a sharply focused attack on Hussein and the people and institutions that keep him in power. And rather than a five-week-long air campaign followed by a ground attack, as happened in 1991, the two could occur nearly simultaneously.
The ultimate decision on how to write and execute the war plan resides with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as chief of the U.S. Central Command would lead the attacking force. Even with this week's flurry of diplomatic activity in New York and Washington, planning for a possible war intensified. Franks met in Kuwait on Thursday with his command's service chiefs to discuss the state of the Iraq planning.
Franks also recently briefed President Bush on what one senior officer termed "a range of courses of options" for invading Iraq. That briefing, which was first reported in yesterday's editions of the New York Times, was confirmed by Taylor Gross, a White House spokesman, who said, "The president has options now, but he has not made any decision." Planning is continuing as Franks and his subordinates try to balance conflicting goals, such as being cautious and overwhelming against being audacious and swift.
Franks's planning is being heavily influenced by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and a tightly knit circle of advisers surrounding him who, according to sources, are urging Franks to consider an invasion force that is smaller, more fast-moving, and relies more on Special Operations troops than traditional Army thinking would dictate. Indeed, the units Franks has signaled that he is likely to want to move overseas point toward a compromise force that is heavily armored but also fast. Among those Franks has tapped for likely use are the 1st Cavalry Division, a tank-heavy unit based at Fort Hood, Tex.; the 3rd Infantry Division, a mechanized infantry outfit based at Fort Stewart, Ga.; and parts of the helicopter-rich 101st Airborne Division, from Fort Campbell, Ky., according to three officials.
After Bush's decision this summer to make Iraq his top foreign policy priority, military planners are operating under a tighter schedule than they had anticipated, though one senior officer predicted that the military could be in position to launch an attack 45 to 60 days after the president gives the order.
This article is based on more than two dozen interviews with uniformed and civilian Defense officials, with some advisers to Rumsfeld, and with independent military analysts and strategists who have knowledge of Pentagon thinking. It reflects their understanding of the issues confronting Rumsfeld, Franks and their colleagues and the emerging blueprint for battle.
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke declined to discuss specifics of this report, but said the department opposes publication of articles that discuss the possible conduct of war. The Post has on its own initiative withheld operational details that could potentially endanger U.S. troops. The military plans discussed in this report are still options being debated.
Targeting the Leadership
The war being designed now is an attack on a government, not a country.
"Our interest is to get there very quickly, decapitate the regime, and open the place up, demonstrating that we're there to liberate, not to occupy," one military planner said.
The bull's-eye is Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, where about 50,000 people live on the Tigris River about 100 miles north of Baghdad. "Tikrit is the political center of gravity," said Rick Raftery, a retired Marine intelligence officer who served in northern Iraq in 1991. "It must be immediately eliminated."
Experts on Iraq say that Tikrit is the nexus between Hussein, the security police and his weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "Iraq's WMD are under the control of the special security organization," Khidir Hamza, a former Iraqi nuclear engineer, recently testified on Capitol Hill. "This is the same group that are charged with Saddam's security. This feared and ruthless organization is mainly composed of conscripts from Saddam's hometown and very loyal tribes in the adjacent areas."
Targeting the leader and his cronies is reminiscent of the NATO air campaign against then-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and those around him during the Kosovo crisis in 1999. The campaign focused on the factories and warehouses where their wealth resided.
posted on September 23, 2002 06:34:03 PM new
Following is the text of former vice president Al Gore's speech today before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco:
posted on September 23, 2002 09:14:36 PM new
yeah, yeah, yeah. It's all grandstanding. The democrats are going to support the invasion of Iraq. They're just upset that Bush is forcing them to let the voters know where they stand BEFORE the elections.
posted on September 23, 2002 09:33:44 PM new
They had one of those talking heads shows on CNN. They all said this is Gore's last gasp. The Dems consider him unelectable. Last year of course, he was all for the President's handling of Iraq. Now he has to go on record as anti AND hope for a bad turn of events with the President's policy. Basically placing a side bet against your country.
Just another flip-flopping low life politician with a new scheme.
posted on September 23, 2002 11:18:00 PM new
Thanks for that link, Helen. When I caught a news quip about it I wanted to read what he had to say.
It was a long speech. He did not "flip-flop" in the speech at any point. However, he voiced concerns that many Americans feel at this point. I am happy to see that Gore has a grasp of the situation, just a grasp of the situation not envisioned by his detractors here.
Helen, for people like others and me to see Gore as a viable Presidential candidate in 2004, he needs to get his act together compared to the first time that he ran. here he has the opportunity in his non-Presidency to show us all what sort of a real President that he would make. Can he lead the opposition from behind and from a media that has virtually closed its doors to the Democratic Party? Can he identify what our troubles are and create a working coalition to address our grievances? Bush is a non-elected President, so can Gore be a non-elected President right now. Can he take the nation by storm, by sheer force of his political prowess and turn the Republican-Nazi connection back into mud? Can he show us that instead of being swayed by polls, that he can instead sway the polls to his agenda -- said agenda being the People's Agenda?
Helen, I have no idea if you are just a grocery clerk at a local drug store over there, or someone who has the ear of anyone in our government. But if you can, please pass along my comments and ideas above to Gore? Let him prove to us what sort of President that we are missing out on and that we would have been far, far better off with him than the current hack and he will be overwhelmingly elected next term.
posted on September 24, 2002 06:03:14 AM new
Borillar
"Helen, I have no idea if you are just a grocery clerk at a local drug store over there, or someone who has the ear of anyone in our government. But if you can, please pass along my comments and ideas above to Gore? Let him prove to us what sort of President that we are missing out on and that we would have been far, far better off with him than the current hack and he will be overwhelmingly elected next term."
I aspire to be just a grocery clerk some day but right now, I'm just a bagger. If I keep my mind on the ball, just like Gore is doing, I may achieve the status that you have so thoughtfully mentioned. Before I was a bagger, I was in charge of the shopping carts. I kept those carts lined up - straight as an arrow - right out in front of the store and as a result, I was offered the position of full time bagger! I'm proud to say that I worked my way up the ladder!
And, I can tell you about the back door too! Lot's of trash out there to clean up but I did good and made my mama proud.
posted on September 24, 2002 12:29:15 PM new
I've been looking for Gore for Bor all day...at the risk of being fired from my bagger job. I certainly hope that my efforts are appreciated.
posted on September 24, 2002 01:49:41 PM new
Many possible motivations are being raised for Bush's(& his advisors') position on Iraq. Some say it is to finish his father's job. Some say it is because he is a hawk. Others say it is because he truly believes Iraq is an imminent threat. The possibility exists that it is a combination of reasons including the following: the moral of the American people is quite low, as although we apparently have done a reasonable job of destroying al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, we have not obliterated all of them, Osama is still alive, and they are therefore still a threat. This threat is stressful and continuously colors our everyday existence. As time passes and we make no further visible progress, we tend to feel helpless. Bush may feel that a specific military action would give us some sense of revenge and /or closure regarding terrorism and serve as a moral and therefore political booster. I feel that the only acceptable and real reason is the imminent threat concern. The imminent threat may in fact be to Israel, but that is a threat to us as well. it is only a matter of time before someone who has refused inspections uses those carefully hidden weapons for evil purposes. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
posted on September 24, 2002 02:17:09 PM new
That could be, stusi. In Gore's speech he voiced quite a few valid concerns. In fact, he sounds just like me and what I've been complaining about. LOL!
For me, the motives are obvious:
1) Mid-term Elections
2) Father's Old Grievances
3) The Family Oil Business
4) Enriching his buddies in the Military/Industrial Complex
5) Continuing efforts to destabilize America economically to bring about a Fourth Reich
6) Get America so far into debt that it can not ever make Principle payments again
That's what I think.
Bush hasn't shown that he gives one wit as to how the American people feel about anything. He doesn't show that he cares about how other leaders of the world feel about common situations. Bush hasn't shown that he gives a damn about how the United Nations feel about anything. He doesn't even give a damn about his beloved Texas, which he engineered to be so polluted and diseased and impoverished while he was governor. He ever goes so far as to not give a damn what the rest of the Republican Party wants and dictates to them. So long as he can wave his almighty skewed polls around, his unmitigated arrogance will continue to overwhelm the good of this planet! Does he care about the morale of the American people? When has he ever?
P.s. Helen: I just thought that since you mention that you live in D.C., you might run into Gore. But that was silly - of course he's hiding out in his home base of operations in Tennessee.
