Joint Chiefs Study Plan to Invade Iraq

Newsweek press release via PR Newswire ^ | 12/23/2001

[GeneD]

NEW YORK, Dec. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Under heavy political pressure to produce options for military action against Iraq, Newsweek has learned, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been looking at a study that suggests putting 50,000 U.S. troops on its southern border; another 50,000 U.S. troops on its northern border; then sending the two forces towards Baghdad in the middle. But planners doubt that even that force would be enough to take the Iraqi capital.

[Arleigh]

I don't think this will make the Russians real happy. I am not sure that matters....

I wouldn't be quick to tick off the Russians. In the long run, they might be our best friend in the world. A) They still got lotsa nukes. B)By the year 2100 they may be the last major, ahem, non-minority majority state left on the planet.

The way the foks in Euroland have been acting up, we may have to do a repeat of the old 1945 US/USSR Squeeze Play.

[jimtorr]

When GW exceeds the powers given him by the constitution and congress, that will be the time for protest. So far, he has operated withing the bounds set be const. and congress. Don't complain that he has violated the const. until he actually does so. If he does, then I will join you in protest.

As you've said above, this in regards to the present "war against terrorism".

[Eagle74]

Creative thinking alone won't be enough. Some major league diplomacy to keep our friends in the region friendly would be a big plus. An arbitrary and unilateral invasion would probably do us more harm than good.

Those friends your talking about are the same people who vilify us in their press, provided most of the funding and personel to al Qeada, and have the most repressive authoritarian governments in the world. Please tell me why we should care what they think? What can they do if we just ignore them? The fact is, victory as a demonstration of POWER will put these spinless cowards in our pocket. What are you worried about? Will the Islamic world hate us more than they do now? Who cares? The debate in the US over the importance of Islamic world opinion, was over on 911. Most Americans now agree that they hate us and there is nothing we can do about it. What we can do something about is to make sure they understand that if they attack us they DIE.

[jimtorr]

Guess I should proofread before posting.

Granted, GW is treading a fine line here. Does the const. really give him the power to act in Afghanistan and elsewhere? Jefferson thought so, but he was also in favor of an "imperial" president. Lots of precedent, as has been spoken of ad nauseum on FR. So far, I think GW is on the correct side of that gray line.

[TigerLikesRooster]

RE #39 Yes, Iraq as a country should come to an end if Saddam gets toppled. It could be divided in 3 pieces. Turks and Kurds have to work out a deal with Iraqi norhtern oil fields as a prize dangled by US. The southern part may be a defacto province of Iran, considering the holiest sites of Shi'ite such as Karbala is in the southern Iraq. And the middle is for Sunni non-Kurd Muslims, small landlocked country which was once Iraq.

[is_is]

kool!!!

Merry Christmas!!!

[bonesmccoy]

Happy New Year... you're welcome.

[Buckeroo]

It will be too late for protest. It will be the time of civil war.

[Otis Mukinfus]

I wouldn't be quick to tick off the Russians. In the long run, they might be our best friend in the world. A) They still got lotsa nukes. B)By the year 2100 they may be the last major, ahem, non-minority majority state left on the planet.

And C) They have the worlds second largest oil reserve.

[section9]

Putin knows that Saddam is a pain in the ass and a loose cannon. A nuclear Saddam is a danger to Russian interests in the region as well. He just wants to get in on the ground floor so he can be at the Peace Conference with the Turks, the Israelis, and the EU.

Besides, he's sitting on serious oil wealth. No one can tell Russia what to do. Least of all the U.S..

Yes, we're starting to lay the groundwork for an assault on Iraq. The Arabs have taken the measure of Bush the Younger and his circle of advisors and have found them impressive and resolute. Notice the lack of Jihadist upheaval on the Arab Street.

Saddam knows this as well. Bush will strike while the iron is hot, but only after having put his ducks in a row.

Watch for the U.S. to come to an understanding with Iran in the near future.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Nick Danger]

The debate in the US over the importance of Islamic world opinion, was over on 911. Most Americans now agree that they hate us and there is nothing we can do about it. What we can do something about is to make sure they understand that if they attack us they DIE.

Bingo.

[cardinal4]

Good post,I agree with everything.Ive been saying for some time that Iran,while probably not publicly,can turn out to be an ally.They hate Sadamm as much as we do,remember,he gassed Iranian troops in the 80-88 war.Plus there are a lot os Shiites in southern Iraq.Khatemi shown on more than one occaision that he is willing to open a dialogue with us.I understand we already have a back channel through the Poles?Swiss?I dont remember which.Either way,I think Sadamm knows which way the wind is blowing,its beneficial to everyone to see him gone.

[Orion78]

Putin threat to pull out of coalition if US attacks Iraq
Putin would not support a US invasion of Afghanistan

[Orion78]

Putin Says US Decision To Withdraw From ABM Is A Mistake
Putin says NATO should be replaced

[aristeides]

And faced with such resolve, vital regional allies Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- all of which border Iraq -- are quietly saying they're ready to cooperate.

What about Iran? If we play our cards right, we can bring the democrats in Iran to power, and win their cooperation in the conquest and occupation of Iraq.

[Grut]

Let's see if we can't clarify things. Right now, if we use a stealth bomber to blow up a bridge across the Tigris, that's 'within the powers given the POTUS', while if the Iraqis use a bomb hidden in an eighteen-wheeler to blow up a bridge across the Mississippi, that's 'terrorism'.

If we declare war against Iraq then anything they do to us that doesn't violate the Geneva Convention is morally permissible. Obviously, by not declaring war we preserve the moral high ground, a lonely ethical outpost we share only with India.

[aristeides]

Uncle Bill says Israeli intelligence is satisfied that Iraq delivered anthrax to Atta. I don't know what his evidence is for saying so. Since Israel has long wanted to embroil us with Iraq, the news, if true, has to be treated with caution. But I think it is significant.

[Buckeroo]

"If we declare war against Iraq ,,,," -- Grut

Where is our Congress within all this? They are votining themselves a HUGE payraise for nothing while permitting the president to take upon the whole operation. Our Congress needs to be voted out. We need new people; we need Libertarians that understand the Constitution and have the guts to stand up for what is right.

[A Simple Soldier]

Actually, Christopher Dickey's son is a Captain in the US Army who might even in theater already. So I know there was no compromise of secret plans.

[gonzo]

"...Why doesn't Congress declare war if we are going after a sovereign nation? ..."

Bingo, Bucky! The last time, it was a UN-sanctioned dogfight, naturally, a FUBAR, but this time, we should do it alone, do it right, and DO the declaration of war.

Of course, any of our buddies, the Brits, Canucks, Aussies, etc, are welcome in the shoot!

This IS an Historical showdown, as you know. Stay well and vigilant, pal, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!.....FRegards