Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Bush does not attack Iraq before 2004 his a One-Term President
05-28-2002 | brianbaldwin@hotmail.com

Posted on 05/28/2002 9:55:34 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin

If Bush does not attack Iraq in the coming months prior to 2004, even though that seems far away at this time and Bush comfortably "fat and lazy" in the "polls", something is going to happen to change all of that. I can guarantee that he will be a one-term President if he makes this mistake. The Bushies have no idea just how real the undercurrent of anger with Bush is within the grass roots of the street fighters of the right, those who are somewhat still, holding back, but letting Bush know with some chosen words, that real shadows in the fire can come after him just like they did Clinton. I can also guarantee that if Bush fails regarding this, the Enemies of Democracy will be empowered by this lack of will on the part of Bush, who quite frankly is waffling the conservative agenda domestically and basically really hasn't accomplished much in protecting our borders. However, there is very evident reason to believe that the US intelligence and military is arguing for such a war, and the only, only excuse Bush would have in not engaging is if the evidence was clear that we are not ready militarily to engage at this time or any time in the near future. This is also a possibility, and the right is ready to face reality and, if this is the truth, then we do not attack because it would not make sense. When you are ready, then go, and don't stop until you win. I guess that is what we were suppose to have learned from our mistakes in the past.

Quite frankly, I do not "want" to go to war with Iraq. No, I do not. In some respects, the Baath Party of Iraq is progressive, and currently in Iraq the Communists are trying to overthrow the current regime and they are as much, in fact, more of a threat to peace than the current regime. If they ran Iraq, there is no doubt they would have engaged in much worse terror than Mr. Saddam has upon his own people and neighbors. I also respect the Iraqi culture and people, and have always wanted to go there, the home of Babylon. However, it is too late for Mr. Saddam Hussein, now going on 66 years old but very healthy - it is not his health nor his mind that is weak despite his crimes - and there were opportunities for him to take exile, but strategically it would be better to force a particular government there however un-democratic and imperialistic it may sound than to allow the Baath to be replaced with the Communist Party of Iraq. Bush could be a "last chance" to remove Saddam or we will end up with another Castro who will outlast 6 US Presidents or more and eventually be turned into a cult hero of sorts by the leftist media up until the time they think they can get a communist in there in his place. And the Baath, in some sort of new form, can indeed become a later ally perhaps against China. Many had hopes that Iran would come about, and what a mighty and dynamic ally they would indeed be, however it looks like it will take too long, so a short term change of government in Iraq which could led to a new strategic friend there, especially in the Iraqi people, would be a great benefit. It sounds horrible to say, that we would have to "kill them to make them our friends". Again, I would not want to see even one Iraqi citizen killed if at all possible, because first of all American soldiers will also die and mothers will cry for them, and again, I would rather see any other avenue than war with Iraq. This would not be like the campaign in Afghanistan. It is different in Iraq. I respect Iraq as a national people a lot, and no way want this war. I do not want this war - not a war against the Iraqi people if at every chance it can be avoided, but a war against terrorism and elements of the current regime, yes. Also, I think the U.K., be it Labour or Conservative, but I think Mr. Blair is doing a good job internationally, can assist in regards to what and the how of Iraq.

Our forefathers of Babylon were great people in history, forefathers of mankind despite all the horrors of the ancient times. Also, it is imperative that we understand ourselves, where we came from. All lives are different, and there are good and bad everywhere. In every place, there are women, and children. But when the day of tragedy comes, it is time to say to those who harbor the enemy, let them listen to the drone of planes at night.

Babylon of the past is located in Iraq of today. I always wanted to go there and walk among the ruins. Jews were taken as slaves here, but also these ancestors of men had ancient tales that are part of our inner psyche of man. The ancestors of men put to record in old Babylonian the following scattered text:

Before the day of tragedy, the old King had put many of our angry gods into prison. Then the enemy came from the land of locust. They struck the city wall along the hill of skulls, and the wall fell down. They threw the skulls of our ancestors at our soldiers, they desecrated the stones of our tombs. And then the next day, the priests said a day of tragedy has come. An evil wind has come from the East. They told Harran, the new King, that he must now act. Harran put on a fine robe, the new King he was. He remembered that his father had put our angry gods into prison. Harran put on white linen, and oils, and jewels, and then went to the deep dungeon. There, before the door of this dungeon, he offered lambs, and incense. He opened the door. The imprisoned gods came forth from the graves and to the very door of the dungeon. Harran looked into the darkness of that place, and said to the gods, "The evil winds have come but now you have been let lose by me. Eat these offerings, and gain strength. Then go forth, towards the evil winds. Do what you may to our enemies". The gods partook the food, and then they took to the sky towards the evil winds. "Look at the wall of our city, see what our enemies have done!" cried out Harran. The angry gods looked down at the fallen wall, which lay in rubble. They flew towards the evil winds. "Look what they have done to the stones of our tombs!" cried out Harran. The angry gods looked down at the stones of the tombs, which were desecrated. The angry gods asked Harran, "Will you cry for them when we do our bidding to your enemies? Many will die." It is said that one should not let the angry gods look directly into ones eyes. But this King was brave. Harran told the angry gods to look at his eyes. Tomb stone eyes never cry, Harran told the angry gods. The angry gods flew forth at great speed. They went forth and cast down fire upon the enemy. The angry gods returned to the King, and told him, "We are finished, but now you must go to that place and walk into the Valley of Death, and look upon your enemies which we have destroyed with fire". The King tied his loin cloth, and then went to the Valley of Death. He walked through the fearful place. About him the enemy was burned with fire, their ghosts lurked about. But the King had no fear. He walked through the Valley of Death, without fear of evil, nor did he cry. He told the dead, "Tomb stone eyes never cry. I have let lose the angry gods. But I shall fear no evil. For the thundering is my companion. For this great one is of a distant place. And I have become a distant man."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: ancienttales; babylon; bush; iraq; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

1 posted on 05/28/2002 9:55:34 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
I can guarantee that he will be a one-term President if he makes this mistake.

LOL, better call the White House!

Even if it were true, I don't think GWB would give the 2004 re-election a moments thought as he made the decision to attack or not.

Have a good evening.

2 posted on 05/28/2002 10:10:44 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Brian Baldwin

Must be alec's brother

3 posted on 05/28/2002 10:14:50 PM PDT by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
I don't think GWB would give the 2004 re-election a moments thought as he made the decision to attack or not.

I sure hope so. We've had more than enough tail wagging the dog to last us the rest of the century.

4 posted on 05/28/2002 10:15:54 PM PDT by altair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
What a load of Vanity and crap.
5 posted on 05/28/2002 10:17:03 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
If Brian_Baldwin keeps making over reactive titles to articles no one will read them. Including myself. I did not read your article However I feel i can respond to your title...... ARE YOU FREAKING JOKING????? Attack or don't attack ... has bush shown any hesidency to using force? NO.... Are you privy to all the intell he has? NO. What if we have something cooking on the inside.... do you want to bomb them along with the others? NO.... Bush has a clearer idea than any of us what is at stake. Most of all what is the best card to play and when. So far he has played a near flawless game.
6 posted on 05/28/2002 10:24:58 PM PDT by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
What you and the conservative talk show people are missing is the fact that our military is totally un prepared to fight a war with Iraq or anyone else at this time. Why do you think that the majority of our Reserve forces are on active duty today??

Our little fight in Afganistan was the last we had left.

Thanks to Clinton and eight years of social programs and money transfers away from the military and defense. Our ships are way out of maintenance. Our aircraft are long undermaintenanced. Our Army is poorly provisioned. Our sheer numbers of trained personel are very low. We need 150 to 200 thousand well trained and well supplied troops to take out Iraq by ourselves.

Bush needs to do two things.

One - Get a House and Senate majority in his party. Critical for him and the nation. Until then he is giving nothing to the Dimocrats and he is taking everything away from them in the process.

Two - Rebuild our military to fight a full blown war on at least two fronts simultaneously. He has to do this assuming he will have little to no help from our allies in taking out Iraq. Our only viable option in war today is to go right to nuclear weapons. Not necessary with a little time and a lot of money.

Nobody seems to see this, especially the radio talk show people. Everyone wants him to stand up and thump his chest. Why put your enemy on notice that you are going to make war on him? This ain't the movies. If you believe the posturing, the nonsense with our fliping and floping on Israel then Bush is doing a good job. Powell is a perfect foil. Bush the second is one sneaky fellow.

Bush the second will avenge his fathers mistake. Bush the second is going to put us into a war that will require the draft and every spare dime we can print. But that war won't begin for another year.

You read it here first.

7 posted on 05/28/2002 10:26:11 PM PDT by Pylot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
"Shadow in the fire of the right wing," eh?

"Street-fighters of the right?" Kewl! Where, pray, was your last street-fight? Missed it on Fox I guess.

Have a seat, BigGuy, you've scared GW enough for one night.

8 posted on 05/28/2002 10:31:36 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pylot
What the chest thumpers don't think agout is what kind of proof do we have Iraq is behind terrorism? I wouldn't doubt that they are but for every "Breaking News" story on this it turns to piss after the details come out. Headline grabbers may think saddam is behind terrorism but without some proof Bush can't go to the world and UN and say we're gonna take him out. Most Americans would probably go along with it because they trush Bush but the world wouldn't. We didn't give a rats butt what the world thought taking out the taliban because there was ebough proof - But Iraq?

They haven't made it public if it's there?

9 posted on 05/28/2002 10:35:33 PM PDT by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: altair
All Bush thinks about is his re-election - he thinks about it in terms of if he's now in with the New York Times crowd or not. He figures he already has a lot of the stupid Bushies vote, so he's sold them all out. In fact, he does have some of the stupid Bushies vote as he sells out conservatives just like his daddy, but he doesn't have all of the conservatives vote because conservatives are Americans first, borders first, not Republicans first. Some of the Bushies are a real laugh... just tune into talk radio and listen a little instead of looking at your Bush and Laura photos and Prayer for Bush Day 911 - ... 911 happened because don't have borders. We still don't. Look at the Washington Times, other editorials. If Bush pulls another New York Times on us regarding Iraq, he's one term. Anyway, a lot of you Bushies don't even know the folks who were really on the streets making the difference for Bush anyway in the last election fight - a lot of them won't be there next time.
10 posted on 05/28/2002 10:35:44 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Bush wouldn't be worrying about re-election. If he gets a second term, then fine. He has a 4-year job and will do the best he can, which is pretty good.
11 posted on 05/28/2002 10:37:26 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
If Bush does not attack Iraq before 2004 his a One-Term President
... and he'd certainly not be qualified to be called a 'cowboy.'
12 posted on 05/28/2002 10:37:44 PM PDT by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
Puhleeeeeze! Give it up already!
13 posted on 05/28/2002 10:40:26 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Pylot
You are so correct that i find it hard to even add one iota to your comprehensive message. The US military machine was engineered to be able to face two strong foes in separate theaters, and having done so to win. However right now i do not believe that it can even face one strong foe that is dug in, and do so efficiently. Most probably victory would still be ours, however the toll in American lives would be phenomenal.

And as you said the progression fo this sad state of affairs with the military could lead to the draft. Although IMHO what will happen is that some nation shall decide to challenge US interests sometime in the future, and the US military shall not be ready to handle it. And since the use of nukes would be hard to justify, and conventional means would be stretched and worn thin due to years of cutbacks and sitting on hands, then a real problem would arrise.

A good example is if China decided to attack Taiwan. And this is a bigger issue than any war with Iraq.

What would happen then?

15 posted on 05/28/2002 10:41:56 PM PDT by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
"However right now i do not believe that it can even face one strong foe that is dug in, and do so efficiently."

Based on what facts are you making your judement?

They better be good because I will blow them out of the water once you post them if they're not!

16 posted on 05/28/2002 10:45:59 PM PDT by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: america-rules
On your thing anout Iraq i have to agree with you. Saddam is largely inert, and due to his being a dictator he has managed to keep subversive elements (read Islamic radicals) out of Iraq. The country is basically an atheist nation in reality due to his fear some islamic zealot demagogue will usurp his rule. And once he 'gets out of office' his sons will take over, and they have been characterized as even worse than he is. Thus although he is horrible for the Iraqi people, he is benign for the international community. All the stuff he has been doing after the Kuwaiti affair has been sheer sabre-rattling.

Now look at Pakistan. This is an Islamic nation with a wide base of religious fanatics who think the country should be an Islamic theocracy. The leadership is also under constant threat of revolt or even a coup de tat. And they have a nuclear arsenal!

However standard US policy is that it is an ally because they are helping us capture elements of al Queada and the Taliban. Which is strange because until late last year they were one of only two nations that surported the Taliban, and if you believe the British Foreign Secretary they are one of the paramount surporters of global terrorism.

However we stick by them, deluding ourselves that they are our allies. And although Musharaff may have no beef with the US, you can be certain that most of his cabinet, and a lot of the Pakistani people view the US as a force of moral and spiritual decay. And if the current state of Pakistani nuclear production continues, who is to say they will not leak nuke tech to their follow Islamic nations, just as China leaked nuke tech to them (since Pakistan could not compete with the indigenous Indian nuke program).

Then the US will go there 5 years from now to remove some crazy Pakistani president who took after Musharaff, and then the US will be facing a state with nukes that is willing to use them. Do not for one moment think that Pakistan fears retaliation (like the way the US and the Soviets respected the Mutually Assured Destruction concept). Even if they know they will be destroyed they will still use their nukes. Think of it as a suicde bombing, but instead of plastique they are using fussion weapons!

And even with the risk of this people are fighting for the US to go inside Iraq. Sheer myopia if you ask me.

17 posted on 05/28/2002 10:55:07 PM PDT by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: america-rules
Come on, be serious. The US military has so atrophied that it is even suffering from minor logistical problems.

And since you asked for examples (so you could blow me out of the water) how about the fact that in just the Afghan operations there was a sever crisis when it came to the numbers of JDAM munitions after a month! (DOD)

Or what about the low numbers of cruise missile, botht he Tomahawk and the air launched B-52 version crusie missile? And even when Clinton did that tactical strike against al Queda in 1998 aftre the Embassy bombings there were calls for replenishing the supplies of the Tomahawks.

Now, if relatively limited operations in Afghanistan can drain the military resources so, what about a drawn out campaign against red China? Bigger landmass plus better defenses than Afghanistan (which only had 1980s stingers while the Chinese have Chzech radar that can track the F-117A). It is just a simple matter of logical progression. The US is just not ready for such a campaign, probably not even for a dug in Iraqi defense. And although we would probaly win the death toll would be prohibitive (especially when you consider most civilians would not stand by and see their sons and daughters killed. ) Think 'nam.

18 posted on 05/28/2002 11:02:53 PM PDT by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brian_Baldwin
...paisano, chill, take a deep breath count to ten and look at the big picture if you can.
Prez Bush is not Clinton...he is his own man, he is doing what is "RIGHT" for America, not what is right for his own political gain. So what is he going to be one termer(as you stated), as long he is doing the right thing for the country?...what's wrong with that!
19 posted on 05/28/2002 11:04:58 PM PDT by danmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america-rules
So 'blow my points out of the water' if you may. I am not saying that the US military is weak. No. It is still the strongest military force ever.

However it seem ill apt to deal with assymetrical warfare from states that have a weak overall military, but are in possession of some strategic peices of high tech equipment. For example China purchasing sunburn missiles from Russia, and those were designed for only one thing. Being highly manoeuvrable, going in a riple effect (a salvo attacking at different altitudes and angles to beat ship defenses, with some missiles skimming the surface, some going on a high trajectory, and others zig zagging...and all hit at the same time), and they were meant for one thing.....US aircraft carriers.

There are many assymetrical threats, and the US is still adapting to them. And due to years of atrohy it is just not ready. Yet.

But definitely not ready.

20 posted on 05/28/2002 11:08:43 PM PDT by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson