Posted on 12/31/2003 8:12:13 AM PST by Rennes Templar
Edited on 12/31/2003 8:50:26 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Former Central Command chief Anthony Zinni denounces `ideologues' in Bush administration
Anthony Zinni's opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness.
He had plenty of time to think in the following months while recuperating in a military hospital in Hawaii. Among other things, he promised himself that, "If I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. . . . I don't care what happens to my career."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Whose side are you on ?
You probably deny Libya was involved in an active Arab nuclear weapons program. You are either woefully ignorant of the nature of the ME or you have already taken sides against us.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/
May I suggest a New Year's resolution for 2004? You might want to--CHILL OUT!!!
No, it was not a side concern. Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?
There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."
Until the fall of Baghdad, Iraq has supported terrorist organizations, which have global reach. US national interests are threatened when Iraq poses a threat to its neighbors, particularly Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which are vital to the health of the global economy. The US maintained no fly zones over Iraq for 12 years to protect Iraqis and our allies. We were bombing Iraq almost daily during that time and risking the lives of our pilots.
If the author is credible, then why hasn't a single member of the Bush administration linked the first attack on the WTC to Iraq?
I don't know why the Bush administration has not drawn the linkage or Congress has not held hearings. Commenting on Mylroie's book "The War Against America", William F. Buckley states that she "Reports persuasively that Saddam Hussein was the sponsor of the 1993 attack on the WTC." Richard Perle states, "This spendid and wholly convincing book should form the basis for urgent Senate and House hearings to get to the bottom of the case." Vince Cannistraro, former CIA Chief of Counterterrorism Operations, commented, "One of the most brilliant pieces of research and scholarship I have ever read."
The plan also dealt with the conquest.
Actually, I thought it went pretty well.
They did a good job. The looting could not have been prevented IMHO. The Germans did the same thing in WWII.
They probably did not have enough cash to rent these Iraqi ex-military types. That may have been under estimated.
The plan, as the administration said, was largely implemented as conditions warranted.
Sure, some boobs were made, but to put Zinni's plan up as some sort of tested instruction manual is asinine.
First of all, we will never see what he wrote, and secondly, he has a serious axe to grind so his motives are suspect.
When you look at the occupation, and the number of people causing these problems, (in the1500-2000 range) the occupation has been largely successful.
If more troops had been employed on the groung the target list would have been fatter and that logistics and reactions slower.
The media has poo poo'd this since the beginning.
I see a great picture over there. My son will likely end up over there for a year. It should be a good experience for him.
He wants to be a trigger puller but I want him to do something less exciting and more gratifying. He graduates this year and will enlist.
Are you a bored teenager?
The mobilization plans in 1999, in the event of Iraq collapsing from a brief bombing campaign (i.e., wishful thinking in the extreme), would have been totally different from those devised in 2002 for total ground-air-sea combat. And don't forget that as of 1999, The 'Toon had one or two years of additional harm to impose on our military. Thus, the forces to draw on would have been different, even if the goals and circumstances would have been the same.
If you have a pathological need to publically humiliate yourself further, do it with someone else. Otherwise, a happy New Year to you.
So is Al Gore. I ask you (and him) again, "Whose side are you on ?"
Iraq did not have an active nuclear weapons program. Libya wanted to develop nukes but lacked the technological expertise. Libya folded in order to avoid an invasion for a failed WMD program.
There is an Axis of Evil. Almost all of it is Moslem. It is driven by a pathological hatred for the West and the United States in particular. They are striving with all their might to build and field WMDs against us. Libya did not fold because of a failed WMD program. Qaddafi folded because of covert countermeasures. He does not want to be held accountable for what will happen if we do not prevent it and he gave up his gang membership.
You simply don't understand why Hussein sent his best aircraft to Iran in the first Gulf War do you, or why the Iranian regime is defending him now ? You just don't get it.
The nuke situation was one that was months/years away, but was comming.
Side Issue should be substituted by the words "a secondary but no less important concern".
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.