rawbunzel
|
posted on March 28, 2002 07:19:35 PM new
On the news,CNN I think, they said that we would not be able to go after Saddam for at least several months as we weren't prepared for that size of conflict just yet.Apparently we need to make more smart bombs and don't have enough people.
Excuse me??? If we aren't capable of pulling off a larger "war" what in the hell are we doing over there in the first place!
Also, were you aware that we have over 30,000 soldiers along the border of N. Korea and S. Korea? Doesn't that seem like a huge number?
|
JACKSWEBB
|
posted on March 28, 2002 08:31:38 PM new
 THAT'S OUR BRILLANT MILITARY GOVERNMENT AT WORK. SNAFUS. LAST TO KNOW, FIRST TO GO. SEMPER FI. 2 CENTS.
|
gravid
|
posted on March 29, 2002 01:21:48 AM new
These are the same people that can't figure what to do with high level toxic waste and radioactive waste. Just drop it all over Bagdad. Maybe aim at the water supply a little. I see the bomb bays opening up and a stream of 55 gal. drums fall out. Splat!
The military has to get with the modern industrial slogan. We offer solutions!
|
krs
|
posted on March 29, 2002 02:29:20 AM new
"The military has to get with the modern industrial slogan. We offer solutions!"
|
krs
|
posted on March 29, 2002 02:34:43 AM new
Bunz,
There have been American troops in Korea for over fifty years.
There's not enough money to attack Iraq. He's wasted it all and Osama Bin Laden is giving fatherly advise via email.
(one wag said that the IP traced to a Kinko's in Miami Beach)
[ edited by krs on Mar 29, 2002 02:36 AM ]
|
nycyn
|
posted on March 29, 2002 06:33:02 AM new
Here come da Draft.
|
gravid
|
posted on March 29, 2002 06:39:49 AM new
prediction - If they bring back the draft it will be for women too.
|
nycyn
|
posted on March 29, 2002 06:59:44 AM new
Gravid, interesting idea. I doubt it, but it would be a quicker war our favor.
By the way, who said this?--
"As in any war, the victor only appears to win."
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on March 29, 2002 06:37:45 PM new
Oh..so it's the money thing again.
I know we have had people over in Korea ever since the Korean war but I was surprised to hear how many people we had there. Makes me wonder how many we have in other countries. We spread ourselves pretty thin.
|
gravid
|
posted on March 29, 2002 07:21:59 PM new
The idea is to have enough at the line that it is not a "token" force. Supposedly the other side knows that if they roll over them and kill that many Americans there will be a price to pay. This of course supposes they have similar thought processes and values. - A dangerous assumption.
It has been entirely too long since the country waged total unrestrained war for most people to believe the US has the will to do so. I certainly doubt that is still possible.
Can you imaigine just going in and totally destroying and depopulating a country? The Romans did it without technological weapons.
They would tear down every building flat - cut down every tree, fill every well, sow the fields with salt until they were dead and lead the few people who survived off in chains. The ones who did not surrender KNEW that was what would happen to them.
The US has had two chances to take out Iraq and always does a half hearted job. Why should a third time be different?
|
nycyn
|
posted on March 30, 2002 08:57:41 AM new
Maybe, just maybe, they have a good reason? (Shrugging. Wishing. Smiling weakly.)
|
roadsmith
|
posted on March 30, 2002 08:52:34 PM new
rawbunzel: Did you happen to watch West Wing Wednesday night? The woman poet laureate, Toby's "friend," was talking about the 30,000 we have at the border between N. and S. Korea - in the context of land mines etc.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on March 31, 2002 12:03:33 AM new
There is a pause while we set up support bases in Kuwait and Qatar so we don't have to involve our "friends" the Saudis. There was a report on page 40 of the paper that Boeing is operating 24hrs/day on new "smart" weapons.
Odd that Iraq now wants to "discuss" that missing US pilot and allowing inspections.
|
gravid
|
posted on March 31, 2002 03:47:43 AM new
You can bet when they have more of these pilotless drones - and even regular planes remote operated there will even be less reason to hold back from attacking anyone.
After all if there are no pilots at risk why should anyone care?
|
krs
|
posted on March 31, 2002 04:29:17 AM new
"There is a pause while we set up support bases in Kuwait and Qatar so we don't have to involve our "friends" the Saudis"
Uh,.not quite, duhsquirrell,
BEIRUT, Lebanon, March 28 — Saddam Hussein secured broad Arab support today in heading off any
American military action against his country when the region's leaders declared here that an attack on
Iraq would be considered an attack against all Arab states.
In return for this support, given at the close of a two-day Arab League summit meeting, Iraq accepted policies
it had vehemently rejected in the past.
The Iraqi government agreed to recognize Kuwait as an independent state and to not invade again.
It also said it would work with the United Nations in carrying out post-gulf-war cease-fire provisions and
would join an Arab initiative, approved here, that envisions peace with Israel.
Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia took the unusual step of publicly kissing Iraq's representative in front
of the television cameras, sealing the idea that the Arabs are ready to begin welcoming Iraq back into their
fold.
This very public embrace appeared to be a rebuff to the Bush administration and another sign of its limited
influence in a region it chose largely to ignore during its first months in office.
The Arab leaders declared today that they reject "the threat of an aggression
on some Arab countries, particularly Iraq, and assert the categorical rejection
of attacking Iraq or threatening the security and safety of any Arab state, and
consider it a threat to the national security of all the Arab states."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/international/middleeast/29IRAQ.html
|
nycyn
|
posted on March 31, 2002 12:23:32 PM new
>>After all if there are no pilots at risk why should anyone care?<<
Because pilotless planes are way more expensive than human collateral. Duh. 
|
krs
|
posted on April 2, 2002 09:27:32 PM new
The country is broke and taking desperate steps to continue it's ability to borrow.
welcome back deficit spending. This ought to begin the devaluation of the dollar and get those interest rates climbing.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&u=/ap/20020402/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/debt_limit_42
|
gravid
|
posted on April 2, 2002 09:41:40 PM new
Guess I better hurry if I am going to refinance my mortgage!
|
Borillar
|
posted on April 2, 2002 09:51:08 PM new
I read the main article of last week's Time Magazine (March 25th, 2002) while I waited for my mom to get done at the dentist. The article was entitled: "Why Bush Is Getting Involved In Israel Finally", or some such. Basically, it said that Bush has had a total 'hands-off' policy to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process so far in office. However, just last week (before March 25th), his plans to invade Iraq got side railed. It turns out all of the Arab states are DEMANDING that Bush/America go into the middle of the fray and start peace going again. Further, until Bush did this thing, no Arab country would support his next move against Sadaam until then. So, long story short, Bush vies-a-vie America has to go stick its big nose and dump billions of dollars into the coffers of those two countries to quiet them down while the two pretend to be listening to a new peace process, just so that the rest of the Arab nations will support Bush's next objective.
|
Borillar
|
posted on April 2, 2002 09:59:02 PM new
That also explains why our media is inundating America with minute-by-minute coverage of the troubles over there on the west bank. Obviously, Bush has had a lot of support from Americans to stay OUT of the multi-millinieum-long troubles over there. Now the adminsitration has to drum up a lot of support for getting re-involved. After all, the Republicans FOAMED AT THE MOUTH in the media while Clinton was President about his administration getting too involved over there all of the time.
But really, it's much more funny than that!
I mean, much more funny than seeing Bush and the Republicans having to go make a mad dash over there to try to broker peace, which makes them total hypocrits. Think about it. IF a temporary peace deal must be had before the Arab nations will support the next invasion and world conquest by Bush and Big Oil, THEN it is gonna take a long, long, long time! Chances are, Bush will NEVER get to invade Iraq! HAHAHAHAHA!
|
gravid
|
posted on April 2, 2002 10:09:31 PM new
I can think of no worse position than being a "peacekeeper" between these two factions that hate each other's guts. Anyone that tries is going to have their butt shot off by both sides.
The Arabs deserve to be told OK - deal with Saddam yourselves, and the next time he rolls over the borders they need to be reminded - Oh no, that is not our concern. Don't call us . We may have to do something later if he wins but sadly you will be gone.
|
krs
|
posted on April 2, 2002 10:14:23 PM new
http://www.a20stopthewar.org/
|
