Posted on 04/05/2003 12:02:17 PM PST by logic101.net
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, NOT SADDAM'S MARK A SITY 4/5/03
A couple of weeks ago a slew of Democrat congress critters came out within hours of each other with statements that they "…support the troops." Given that this number included both Senators Dashole and Hitlery Clinton I was of course very skeptical. However, upon further thought I have come to realize that not only were all these congress critters not only totally sincere, but completely consistent. The only problem is they weren't talking about supporting OUR troops, because they are not!
Psychological warfare is as old as warfare, and almost as important as weaponry. There have been many cases on a battlefields where a smaller, less well armed force defeated a much superior force as a result of psychology; in more military terms, morale. This is a factor that can never be overlooked in any military conflict. A force with high morale will fight harder and smarter than one demoralized with poor morale; espirit de corps is a real factor on the battle field. A force with high morale will never surrender, but will fight to the death. A force with low morale wonders why they are even there and surrenders quite easily.
What the Democratic congress critters, the UN (Useless Nations), the French (sorry, but most other names for them are unprintable here), the Pro-Saddam Demonstrators (often called anti-war protesters), and the main-line press (who inject their poison into the minds of the population much like a heroin addict injects his poison into his blood stream) all side with the enemy they bolster his troops' morale. They also serve to demoralize our troops; morale, fortunately the poison hasn't taken hold with our troops much if any. We can thank Pres Bush for his leadership, making it clear to our troops that they will get the backing they need, regardless of the Pro-Saddam crowd. The effect that distresses me is the effect these actions have had on Iraq. Our psychological warfare effort was compromised from day 1, thanks to the above mentioned groups.
There is no way to tell, but it is possible that if both the US and the UN had presented a unified front against Saddam's violations of well over a dozen resolutions, not to mention the cease fire agreement from the Gulf War, this war might not have been needed. Am I foolish enough to think that Saddam might have chosen exile? Heck no! Saddam needs total control over millions of lives the way we need air! He cannot live without power (much like democrats). However; some of his henchmen might have realized that their time was done, and done away with Saddam. How many lives would this have saved? Even had that not happened, when we went into Iraq, many more of the Iraqi military would have surrendered without a fight; knowing that their cause was lost (and in most cases not believing in the "cause" anyway; but rather desiring freedom from Saddam). Had the world shown a unified front against this ruthless, genocidal and totally nuts dictator many of his so-called "elite" forces may not have been in the ranks of the regulars to force them to fight by putting guns to their backs.
The material for Saddam's internal propaganda war could not have been better (for him that is). We had Dashole and company for months talking about "unilateral action" (excuse me Tom, "uni" means 1; and we had a coalition from day 1). We had the press running with the "unilateral" lie. We had the press making the Pro Saddam Demonstrators page 1 news and inflating their numbers, yet almost ignoring the Pro US Demonstrations (one in Fort Wayne, IN had 10% of the population show up). We had the French threatening to veto any action to enforce the many resolutions they themselves signed on to (and at the same time selling weapons and parts to Iraq). We had "experts" on TV saying how good the Iraqi military machine was and how tough their troops were (I guess they forgot the Gulf War). We had the Democrats and the Pro-Saddam Demonstrators saying that Pres Bush was just after oil. We even had the Pope saying that this war is immoral (yet refusing to condemn Saddam for any of his daily immoral acts). For Saddam's propaganda mill it just couldn't have been any better. Nor could it have been any worse for the Iraqi people. Imagine, the only news you get as a subject of Saddam being the stuff that supported his regime. You see yet another war facing you which will result in even more shortages and restrictions; but no hope of freedom. The Useless Nations has betrayed the Iraqi people for a dozen years; why should they trust any other nation to rid them of the yoke of oppression this time? Yet, they cannot help themselves with such a brutal regime so entrenched and themselves so powerless. The UN allowed an "oil for food" program, but never cared that the money was used for weapons and palaces instead of food for the population. With the propaganda the UN, the Democrats, the Pro-Saddam Demonstrators and of course the snail eaters (the French - I thought of one that was printable); what hope did they have of a successful rebellion? This war could have possibly been avoided had it not been for the so-called "anti-war" crowd!
How many deaths has the so-called "anti-war" crowed caused? How much suffering? How much more will they cause in the future?
MARK A SITY http://www.logic101.net/
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.