Article

2003-02-13 Iraq

Turkey denies British troops role on border

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-02-13 01:12 am|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Can anybody give a clear motivation why the US is so eager to destroy Iraq, please don't bring up that old cliche of Saddam is a dictator or mass destruction weapons conspiracy theory.

I wonder if the US is going to stop after Iraq, or whill she continue with Iran?

Posted by Murat 2003-02-13 02:21:47|| 2003-02-13 02:21:47|| Front Page Top

#2 If the US is 'so eager', why didn't they invade last year?

It's funny, you people are so clueless that you just don't get that Bush is essentially dragging his heels on Iraq. Many, many, many Americans wanted Saddam taken out last year.

But no. Bush had to go to the UN and get the weapons inspectors in. He had to consult with our allies.

That's the really ironic thing. Because he's taken so long to actually do it, it's given the opposition ages and ages and ages to grow.

Posted by Jeremy 2003-02-13 02:48:56|| 2003-02-13 02:48:56|| Front Page Top

#3 Machiavelli taught that you should get the unpleasant, unpopular decisions over and done with QUICKLY or and string out the treats, as people are apt to get angry quickly then forget about it, while constantly being reminded of how good their leaders are by the treats.

I wish GW Bush and Colin Powell would read The Prince. Saddam should have been toast by last year already. If they linger much longer, there'll be no acting at all.

Posted by anon 2003-02-13 03:55:02|| 2003-02-13 03:55:02|| Front Page Top

#4 Machiavelli taught that you should get the unpleasant, unpopular decisions over and done with QUICKLY and string out the treats, as people are apt to get angry quickly then forget about it, while constantly being reminded of how good their leaders are by those treats.

GWB and CP et al should read The Prince. Saddam should have been toast by last year already. If they linger much longer, there'll be no getting rid of him at all.

Posted by anon 2003-02-13 03:56:03|| 2003-02-13 03:56:03|| Front Page Top

#5 Murat,

The U.S. is not interested in "destroying Iraq" any more than it was interested in "destroying Afghanistan" or "destroying Kosovo". We are intersted in removing from power the current rulers of Iraq. Iraq will not only survive, but prosper if we do that.

As for why we want to do that, well, since you've already absolutely ruled-out a willingness to listen to the best reason, there's no point to even have the discussion, is there?

As for "what's next", I'm damned if I know. A lot will depend on the post-Saddam world situation. Iran could explode into a revolution that topples the current regime, descend into civil war, or simply continue to repress its people while hunkering down and waiting. North Korea could lash out wildly at South Korea, make a deal with the US, or simply sit and starve to death. Terrorists could perform one or more hign-profile attacks on targets in the U.S. or Europe or they could continue to make loud threats and do nothing. The Palestineans could decide that they need to make a deal with the Israelis or they could continue the intifada. Islamic countries could get out of the business of supporting terrorism or they could continue. My crystal ball is pretty hazy on all of those points.

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-02-13 04:36:46|| 2003-02-13 04:36:46|| Front Page Top

#6 Patrick, Iraq will prosper if we do that, if we do what? Bombing them three centuries back in time (equal to Afghanistan)? Bombing every infrastructure and complex that has been left or rebuilt since 1991, that decreased the average income of an Iraqi from the $7000 to the current $1200. Letting the income of the Iraqis further decrees to $200, well below the standard of the Central African nations? What kind of prosperity do you mean if I may ask, spiritual prosperity?

I am not a person of follow the CNN blindfolded, I asked Iraqi Arabs themselves what they feel about Saddam, most of them regard him as a hero (how strange it may sound for us). They speak of him as the only ruler of Iraq who cared for the Iraqi people, you have to know that Iraq has never known democracy ever. They understate that he only shared the oil revenues for the prosperity of the people, and before 1991 Iraq was the only Arab country with a full social system and health care for every individual. Only a majority of the Kurds are radical anti Saddam.

I admit that I am a sceptical, but it is not wrong to question whether we are not focused by one-sided information only. If Iraq is packed full with mass destruction weapons, then where are they, why didnât the weapons inspectors have one piece of evidence. And why has Collin Powel presented such shallow evidence, let go of the smoking gun, there was not even fume.

Sorry but I am not convinced, this tantrum is more a personal vendetta of Bush and nothing else IMO.

Posted by Murat 2003-02-13 05:16:55|| 2003-02-13 05:16:55|| Front Page Top

#7 My recollection is that in October of 2001, support for taking down Saddam was around 70%. That was over 6 months before the administration made any kind of noise about actually doing anything.

As for "WMD conspiracies"...

Suppose we did nothing, and then Saddam's weapons WERE revealed..

What would you say to the families of the dead?
"Your family member died so we wouldn't have to go to war in Iraq."
Except.. then the fat would really be in the fire, and it wouldn't be precision guided explosives.

If you think America is aggressive now after 3,000 people died, just imagine how aggressive we would be if there were a successful WMD attack on us.

For all the talk of fueling Islamic militance, there's been very little consideration given to the effect on Americans. A lot of American youth have been transformed by events, in ways that certain parties beyond our shores might not much care for.

"Go ahead, make my day."

Can't you feel the anger rising?

Posted by Dishman 2003-02-13 05:29:34|| 2003-02-13 05:29:34|| Front Page Top

#8 Congratulations Dishman, you answered my question in a way that I totally have not expected:
What would you say to the families of the dead?
"Your family member died so we wouldn't have to go to war in Iraq."

So I guess, now you plan to tell the innocent, your family member has died because we had suspicions that Saddam had unrevealed weapons. Very convincing indeed!!!!

For all the talk of fueling Islamic militance, there's been very little consideration given to the effect on Americans. A lot of American youth have been transformed by events, in ways that certain parties beyond our shores might not much care for.

Forgive me for not understanding your logic, do you say American youth will be de-transformed when the US wipes out hundreds of thousands of lives?

Posted by Murat 2003-02-13 07:39:27|| 2003-02-13 07:39:27|| Front Page Top

#9 murat

your point about infrastructure is good - if we destroy it that will make it hard to build a democratic, prosperos IRaq. Fortunately the Pentagon knows this. Rumor is they will make every effort to AVOID destroying infrastructure this time. The air war will look very different from Gulf war 1 or from Kosovo.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-02-13 07:57:13|| 2003-02-13 07:57:13|| Front Page Top

#10 Murat,

You're assumption that the war with Iraq will inflict hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties and result in the near complete destruction of Iraqi infrastructure strikes me as possible only in one circumstance -- if Saddam uses the WMDs you seem to feel he doesn't have.

I acknowledge the catastrophe that is the current Iraqi economy. However, if after the first Gulf War Saddam had obeyed the instructions of the UN to disarm, then Iraq would not have been been hit by the UN sanctions that limited Iraq's ability to export oil. With the wealth provided by oil exports, Iraq would have been able to rebuild something other than grandiose Presidential Palaces. Unfortunately, Saddam had different ideas.

Iraq's slide into it's present misery began during the disastrous Iran-Iraq war, which was caused by the ambitions of Saddam Hussein. In 1991, the United States and a host of allies did not suddenly attack Iraq just for kicks. They did so because of the actions of Saddam Hussein. The reason Iraq was unable to rebuild after the war was because of the decisions of Saddam Hussein.

If you want a prosperous Iraq, getting rid of that man is the fastest route. And if your Iraqi Arab friends cannot see that, I can now finally see how Iraq ended up with Saddam in the first place. I thank you for that insight.

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-02-13 08:39:02|| 2003-02-13 08:39:02|| Front Page Top

#11 Liberalhawk, Patrick Phillips,

Rumours do also say that this time the bombing will be so heavy that it will be matchless to anything we have ever seen. If it is not the infrastructure then it must be the mountains and the shepherds who will be targeted by the air force. Before 1991 Saddam was regarded as US ally, you just have to read some notes about April Gilespie.
But forget about Saddam, the fact of removing the Baathâist regime alone will probably cost more than hundreds of thousands of victims, even US planners do reckon with a power vacuum, which will draw Iraq into civil war.

Although I am not convinced about the US justification for a war, I am convinced that the US will proceed with it no matter what. May the war rid every Arab nation of their dictators, starting with the Saudiâs and all of the other sheikh dictators.

Posted by Murat 2003-02-13 09:13:55|| 2003-02-13 09:13:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Anon,

the U.S. is not run by Princes, but simple mortal men

Murat,

we in the U.S. also destroyed Germany and then rebuilt the democratic German state that is now challenging us. (we are sentimental saps, thus the large debt)
I, a mortal man, want the same thing for the people of Iraq. I want to be able to trust that people of Iraq can disagree with the U.S. and not get mailed a vial of anthrax. It's that simple.

Posted by Bruce 2003-02-13 10:03:30|| [www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm] 2003-02-13 10:03:30|| Front Page Top

#13 How amazing it is that so many people seem to have the inside scoop on U.S. military strategy and target lists! Suffice it to say that GWB will do no more harm than necessary to secure the WMDs and remove Saddam and his cronies. To the extent that the Iraqis and others make that difficult, they are only doing more harm than good. I fail to see how terrorist threats and French bumbling are doing anything other than stiffening American resolve. As for Iran, behavior similar to Saddam's is sure to invoke the same response.

Posted by Tom 2003-02-13 10:29:04|| 2003-02-13 10:29:04|| Front Page Top

#14 Rumors say that the air portion will start out with 3,000 precision guided munitions, true.
Results from Afghanistan were that 90% landed within 10 feet of their target.

Now, what are we going to be aiming at?
Bunkers, command posts, senior officers.
Get the maximum leverage out of our weapons.

People predicted tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. My recollection is that the final tally was 954. More people were dying of starvation before we went in.

While the rest of the world has recognized our dislike of casualties among our own, it has not yet recognized our dislike of casualties among civilians or even the enemy's armed forces.

As for Saddam's WMD:
The truth will come out within one month. You might want to consider how strongly you say he has none. It might affect your credibility in the future. We're willing to put our credibility on the line in saying that he has them, and we intend to prove it. Forget the CIA intelligence and NSA intercepts. The UNMOVIC reports have all the evidence I personally need to feel comfortable in that.

Perhaps I should rephrase my "what do you tell the families.."
What would you tell the families of the dead in Moscow, New York or London?
"Sorry, I didn't think it was worth the risk."

Posted by Dishman 2003-02-13 10:40:03|| 2003-02-13 10:40:03|| Front Page Top

#15 Murat, the way you phrase your ideas suggests that the anti-war propaganda is making a very good impression on you. It makes you susceptible to believing anything evil about Bush that this propaganda spits out. In fact, it doesn't matter if it's Bush or someone else, the propaganda is always the same, Bush just makes an easy target.

The difference between Bush and Saddam, is that Bush is willing to use the WMD only in self-defense. You've obviously forgiven Saddam for murdering countless people with his weapons.

Posted by RW 2003-02-13 10:55:37|| 2003-02-13 10:55:37|| Front Page Top

#16 Much of the "inside scoop" comes from one of the oldest books in existence, Sun Tzu Bing Fa. 2500 years later, it's still just as relevant. The roots of most US military thinking can be found within its pages. I'm not sure that GWB has read it, but we can be sure Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and Franks all have.

Another good source of information is a book on "Game Theory", such as "The Compleat Strategist". While war is not a game, Game Theory is just as applicable as it is in business, economics or politics.

The last piece is that there are rumors that the Pentagon has finally come to terms with the difficulty in surrendering to a B-2.

Our aim is to achieve as close to the acme of skill as game theory says is prudent.

Posted by Dishman 2003-02-13 11:09:28|| 2003-02-13 11:09:28|| Front Page Top

#17 Regarding the bombing campaign, it doesn't look like we're going to bomb Iraq back into even the last couple of centuries. There's a good article in the Wash Times about complaints that the air campaign will not be aggressive enough - that we will spare all the bridges, and even leave the lights on in Baghdad. Cent Com describes the plan as "flexible" so it sounds like they're retaining the option to do so should things get sticky.
As for WMD "conspiracies" ....puhhhh-leeeeeeease!. I'll say this, if Sammy does successfully pop a chem-cap on our boys, all bets are off.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2003-02-13 11:19:57|| 2003-02-13 11:19:57|| Front Page Top

#18 Murat - I've been in the Persian Gulf Region 4 times now, DS/S, 2 IA's and now here I find myself back in Kuwait once again preparing to do what the world would not allow us to do in 91'. Yes, he has WMD. Yes, he would love to use them (or have somebody use them for him). When we entered Kuwait from Iraq about a week after the cease-fire, we were given the task to clean up the unexploded ordinance, haul away the bodies, and try to make Kuwait safe for its' people. The scenes that awaited me still to this day give me nightmares. The instruments and devices of the Iraqi Army were beyond belief. Stuff to make Hitler & Stalin puke. If you don't know the real deal, please don't try to sell your snake oil to a somewhat gullible world. He hates you, he hates me, he hates even his own countrymen. The feel of power and self-righteousness that fuels his brain and psyche is to set in place to allow him to listen to reason, or to feel compassion for anyone or anything. May the Blessings of Heaven rest upon us, and all free people throughout the world.

Posted by Bodyguard 2003-02-13 12:09:30|| 2003-02-13 12:09:30|| Front Page Top

#19 Excuse me, could anyone tell me why the US is so keen to take down Saddam Hussein? And please don't give me any of those "facts", just cater to my own hysterical fantasies, thanks.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2003-02-13 12:45:57|| [darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2003-02-13 12:45:57|| Front Page Top

#20 "Cuz' Saddam Hussein is the Devil!" "No Mama, YOU the Devil! I like Saddam, and he showed me his boobies, and I like dem' too"!

Posted by Bodyguard 2003-02-13 13:01:03|| 2003-02-13 13:01:03|| Front Page Top

#21 Murat, I do not believe you to be an honest debater. If we came up with additional good reasons, what would keep you from sticking your lower lip out and whining "Well, BESIDES THOSE REASONS!" Up until now, you had me fooled, but no longer.

The reasons you ARBITRARILY EXCLUDED have been amply documented or can be logically inferred from pre-existing documentation from previous inspections.

It is for YOU to argue TO ME that *I* MUST close MY eyes and IGNORE the OBVIOUS, not for me to provide further evidence beyond the obvious to you, who has unilaterally pre-invalidated certain arguments that you've failed to refute before. Unlike you, I choose to evaluate information and arguments APART FROM the bearer's race, religion, nationality, gender, or motives (Yes, I'm big enough to see when an "enemy" has a point. For instance, I do not buy, for one minute, that the latest OBL tape is "proof" of a linkage between Al Quaida and Hussein. I just don't buy the assertion that there NEVER WILL BE a hookup between AQ and Saddam in the future.)

Perhaps you feel that your stance morally entitles you to a free pass that releases you from any obligation to argue in a logial or principled manner. Don't whine if I don't feel obligated to honor a forgery...

Posted by Ptah 2003-02-13 13:28:36|| 2003-02-13 13:28:36|| Front Page Top

#22 SULAYMANIYAH, IRAQ - The head of the US military's Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, will rule Iraq in the initial aftermath of a US invasion to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0213/p01s03-woiq.html
Quote: "BWAHAHAHAhaahahahaha! KNEEL before ZOD!"

Posted by Anonymous 2003-02-13 14:00:44|| 2003-02-13 14:00:44|| Front Page Top

#23 "If you kick the king, you better kill him." We did not do this in '91, and now we are paying for the mistake.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-02-13 22:34:23|| 2003-02-13 22:34:23|| Front Page Top

#24 Ptah, whether you believe me or not is up to you, it wonât change my opinion though. I believe that even a murderer has the right to live until his guild is steadfast proven with solid evidence, with this I mean the existence of chemo/bio weapons and not just a few out of focus satellite photos of who knows what. It would not bother me a bit if the US targeted only Saddam and/or his Baatâhist leadership. But what the US is planning to do is to burn the whole forest in order to catch the fox. Maybe I do whine, which is only for all those innocent who will die along with that mischief of Saddam, donât preach about obligation to honor, tell me where is the justice.

Posted by Murat 2003-02-14 02:14:20|| 2003-02-14 02:14:20|| Front Page Top

#25 I had suspected you'd do this sort of retreat from dealing with facts to the more murky concept like "justice" (And one sidedly applied to boot, in addition to being very culturally, ahh, flexible.) When people were talking about all the indicators that we were not going to "burn down the forest", you kept silence. You posted only to respond to MY comment, at the tail end of all those posts. You saw them. You read them. You ignored them. You didn't address them.

I don't know whether your culture regards evasiveness and reluctance to address the facts as acceptable: American culture views these behavioral traits as the modus operandi of cons, thieves, and losers.

Ahhh, forget it! I finally figured out why I shouldn't feed trolls: Its a waste of time, since they won't really read what I say, so why bother?

Posted by Ptah 2003-02-14 07:32:22|| 2003-02-14 07:32:22|| Front Page Top

16:14 Glasweji
08:11 liberalhawk
07:32 Ptah
02:14 Murat
00:40 Joe Katzman
23:48 Tresho
23:37 Tresho
23:25 Tresho
23:23 Tresho
23:03 Michael Levy
22:38 Alaska Paul
22:34 Alaska Paul
22:13 Alaska Paul
22:10 Alaska Paul
22:05 Alaska Paul
21:52 Alaska Paul
21:18 Fred
20:56 ray
20:43 Fred
20:05 Anonymous
20:01 Ed Becerra
19:44 11A5S
19:32 anon
19:27 anon