Skip to comments.
US Advisor Warns Of Armageddon
The Guardian
| 08/16/02
| Julian Borger
Posted on 08/15/2002 7:17:38 PM PDT by Davea
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Armageddon? Not quite yet Mr. Scowcroft. But what's about to occur will seem like it. Many more targets in sight than Iraq. I suppose many folks will think it's Armageddon.
1
posted on
08/15/2002 7:17:38 PM PDT
by
Davea
To: Davea
Wussies.....All of 'em.
2
posted on
08/15/2002 7:21:02 PM PDT
by
AdA$tra
To: Davea
Nevil Chamberlin anyone?
NeverGore
3
posted on
08/15/2002 7:23:56 PM PDT
by
nevergore
To: Davea
The coward thinks the Arabs terrorists are helping us?
No wonder Saddam got to this point.
To: nevergore
Two weeks ago the Guardian would have referred to Brent Scowcroft as a Cold Warrior reactionary neo-Fascist. Now, because he doesn't think it's time to attack Iraq, he's one of America's "most respected" statesmen.
This is just more Euro-weenie whining. And Scowcroft, like so many in 41's administration, is far too concerned with states breaking apart. Remember 41's "Chicken Kiev" speech, which was interpreted by 8/91 Soviet coup plotters as a signal that the US would stand aside? That was Scowcroft's philosophy in action--a vicious totalitarian state that's intact is preferable to the possibility of a fractured formerly totalitarian state.
To: Davea
It seems the war in washington to determine if we go to war has begun. I hope they reach a decision soon.
To: mamelukesabre
I hope they reach a decision soon. The decision has been made. The whining you hear in the press is the desperate attempt to reverse that decision.
7
posted on
08/15/2002 7:31:37 PM PDT
by
garbanzo
To: Davea
Scowcroft makes no sense.
"This time, using weapons of mass destruction, [Saddam] might succeed..."
So, he has weapons of mass destruction. We should wait, then, until he uses them on somebody? Or uses them on us?
"Mr Scowcroft argued that by alienating much of the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would halt much of the cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle against the al-Qaida organisation."
Halt what cooperation?
"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken,"
Hussein sponsors and trains terrorists who conduct terrorism. How would taking a major source of terrorism out jeopardize, or destroy, our "global counterrorism campaign"?
Scowcroft's argument is so ill-thought that it almost has to be bogus. Could it have been conceived and solicited by the administration -- just one more chunk of disinformation aimed at Saddam, baited to hook the mainstream media?
8
posted on
08/15/2002 7:33:31 PM PDT
by
okie01
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: Davea
The Guardian fails to list the "string of leading Republicans" other than Brent Scowcroft.
For one of the few times in it's history this leftist rag is bestowing it's favor on an American Republican. Like anybody on our side of the fence cares?
10
posted on
08/15/2002 7:36:35 PM PDT
by
Mariner
To: michellcraig
The voices of reason are rising to block this insane unprovoked attack. So we're supposed to wait patiently for the next attack before we do anything?
11
posted on
08/15/2002 7:36:53 PM PDT
by
garbanzo
To: garbanzo
The decision has been made. The whining you hear in the press is the desperate attempt to reverse that decision.Exactly. I wonder if they know their whining WILL NOT WORK.
12
posted on
08/15/2002 7:36:54 PM PDT
by
dighton
To: Davea
The outspoken remarks from Brent Scowcroft, who advised a string of Republican presidents, including Mr Bush's father This alone should exclude Scowcroft from being taken seriously.
13
posted on
08/15/2002 7:39:30 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Davea
The fierceness of his attack on current administration policy illustrates the gulf between the elder Bush and his son, who has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on domestic and foreign policy. Must be an editor's mistake here. I believe the term is rational thinkers.
14
posted on
08/15/2002 7:42:47 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: Davea
I am also certain that if Iraq uses WMD against Israel, that Israel will retaliate with nukes.
Yep, there's gonna be a big 'ol war a'right.
All the human infrastructure under Saddam knows this, therefore I don't believe he'll be around much longer. I'm convinced there will either be a big war, or Saddam will be removed from the inside and there will be only a small war.
Whatever the eventual circumstances, he and his sons are dead meat.
15
posted on
08/15/2002 7:44:40 PM PDT
by
Mariner
To: Jack-A-Roe
Scowcroft and our current Secy. of State also advised the elder Bush not to go on to Baghdad when the troops could have done so easily. The Gulf War was correctly deemed a "Triumph without Victory." Now we are not supposed to stop what could well be an attack on the US by terrorists with biological weapons supplied by Saddam??? Weird!
To: michellcraig
You're right on target and I'll add my voice to your comments.
I find it interesting how those who argue against this war are automatically branded "wussies" and "cowards". I know for a fact that I am neither.
17
posted on
08/15/2002 7:59:10 PM PDT
by
The Duke
I think Brent has the wrong target. If I was Bush, I'd go after Iran. Straight up. We already have Saddam pinned down.
Has anyone noticed the activity going on over in Iran?
And whoever heard of Iraqi 'leaders in exile' before this past weekend. Over half of them are Kurds. That's not Iraq. That's the other side of the desert.
No. I think we strike Iran. Hard and fast. I'm still pissed about '79.
The balance of power will then shift to Israel. Hands down.
Israel has to step up and be the new Ottoman Empire. First rule in Poly Sci is that there cannot be a vacuum.
Of course, the administration may have their own plan.
To: Davea
Scowcroft is a dunderhead. He was wrong in '91 and wrong now. He is sure as heck no foreign policy guru. He wants to wait until it's too late.
19
posted on
08/15/2002 8:13:36 PM PDT
by
tomahawk
To: michellcraig
"The voices of reason are rising to block this insane unprovoked attack. In fact, I'm convinced its all hot air. Iraq is a sovereign nation that hasn't crossed the line with anyone of reason. I hear the old wornout argument that they gassed there own people." New here: michellcraig signed up 2002-06-20.
Voices of reason. You should be made to watch tapes of 9/11 24 hours a day for the next ten years.
20
posted on
08/15/2002 8:16:54 PM PDT
by
boris
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson