Posted on 08/04/2002 4:58:16 PM PDT by Pokey78
The only true way to bring a successful end to the war on terror and bring true peace and stability to the region is to cut the head off the serpent of terror, Saddam Hussein.
Accomplish that goal and the entire middle east will settle into submissive resolution.
Just as the riots in Pakistan after the initial bombing of Afghanistan quickly subsided, a decapitation of Saddam's regime would bring on demoralization of the masses.
Only then could real self-reflection among the masses lead to the same conclusion that Russia accepted as the Soviet Union disintegrated........that is......if you can't beat them, join them.
If their main motivation was only fear, that would be sufficient to start the necessary change.
Q: The middle of 1990 what was your view of Saddam Hussein?
Scowcroft: We were not preoccupied with Saddam Hussein. What we hoped was to continue the policy of the Reagan Administration, which was first of all a balance between Iran and Iraq and then hoping to perhaps make Saddam Hussein a minimally usefully member of the international community. After the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq had enormous reconstruction, issues and it was our hope that American business would be able to participate in that since Iraq is fundamentally a wealthy nation.
We had no illusions about the character of this man, at all, but we did not see him necessarily as having serious unrequited aggressive aims.
Scowcroft: ... Deep down ... I wondered if we really had done quite enough, but I did not dissent from the decision, and did not argue that we should go another day.
And in retrospect it would have made little if any difference. That was not a significant decision, whether we stopped then or whether we stopped in another 24 hours, I don't believe.
This I find incredible. He seems to be saying that as National Security Advisor, he offered no opinion on wheter to continue to Baghdad. On further reading, however, it appears he was against it.
Oh yes you do, if they are trying to kill you. Here's a moral for you Bramall; don't attack other countries and not expect a fatal response in return, including surrogates like terrorists doing your bidding.
Yes.
Regarding Field Marshal Lord Bramall, Prime Minister Chamberlain: "We have peace in our time..."
Source: www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm
Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.
Anthony Eden, Chamberlain's foreign secretary, did not agree with the policy of appeasement and resigned in February, 1938. Eden was replaced by Lord Halifax who fully supported this policy.
In February, 1938, Adolf Hitler invited Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, to meet him at Berchtesgarden. Hitler demanded concessions for the Austrian Nazi Party. Schuschnigg refused and after resigning was replaced by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the leader of the Austrian Nazi Party. On 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria and proclaimed union with Germany.
The union of Germany and Austria (Anschluss) had been specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Some members of the House of Commons, including Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, now called on Chamberlain to take action against Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government.
International tension increased when Adolf Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia should be under the control of the German government. In an attempt to to solve the crisis, the heads of the governments of Germany, Britain, France and Italy met in Munich in September, 1938.
On 29th September, 1938, Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred to Germany the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region that contained a large German-speaking population.
When Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia's head of state, who had not been invited to Munich, protested at this decision, Neville Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.
The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Nazi Germany. However, some politicians, including Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, attacked the agreement. These critics pointed out that no only had the British government behaved dishonorably, but it had lost the support of Czech Army, one of the best in Europe.
Czechoslovakia 1939 = Israel 2002
The Brits have been stalwart allies in the past, but they have also been rife with idiot liberal politicians, moreso now than in 1939. And we have saved their butts more than once. Time for the libs to be bathed in the light of the truth.
A people that worship a bunch of inbred "Royalty" and have to pay their Government for an annual license to watch broadcast television are in no position to pass judgement on the USA's imminment destruction of Iraq.
Well said. LtGen Scowcroft makes a point that military planners well understand but that few armchair hawks want to even hear about. Given the current situation in various places around the world, we run the risk of igniting a fire that we might not be able to extinguish. One does not approach a danger area without considering how to cross it, and how to react if caught in it. We should be very sure about what we are doing, and what we might be getting into. Beforehand.
Only recently, DOD admitted what has been obvious for years -- we are no longer able to simultaneously engage two "Major Regional Contingencies" (i.e.: we can't fight a full two-front war). Much was said about there no longer being such a threat, but the truth is that we'd simply run out of Schlitz if it happened -- and then we'd have to explore other tactical and strategic options. This new reality is playing on the minds of today's planners who must present options for when events deviate from script. It is this new reality to which LtGen Scowcroft prudently alludes.
Running out of Schlitz is right. What I've been worrying about lately is the possibility of a three-front war. We've already got a mini-war in Afghanistan. When we attack Iraq, Saddam, knowing that the end is near, will fire biological and chemical weapons at Israel. She will respond with everything she has, including possibly nuclear weapons. Other folks would certainly join in and in short order the whole mideast could be engulfed in war. In the meantime, China, seeing an unparalled opportunity, could make good on its long standing threat to "re-unify" Taiwan with the Peoples Republic.
Despite all this I'm not necessarily saying we should stay out of Iraq. I'm just saying this is one time we sure ought to look before we leap, given the lielihood of landing in deep kimchee.
Agree; perhaps we should attack, but I am not yet convinced of the justification or of the necessity. By the way, your parting allusion points to another miscreant who could pile on in a crisis -- North Korea. Even starving men can pull lanyards and rain death on Seoul. That's my last pleasant thought for the day. Cheers...
You hit the nail right on the head. I wish more people on this site saw things as you do.
Well thanks.
Bring it on !
BUMP
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.