"Peace" is possible in the Middle East.
Posted on 08/16/2002 12:37:18 PM PDT by rightwing2
Many made the same claim in early January of 1991. Iraq will fold like a house of cards yet again. People forget it took those inept clowns eight years to fight Iran to a draw.
I'm unfamiliar with his writings, but if this is part-and-parcel of what he says, I would have to say that he is a part of the Fifth Column.
America Firstish isn't it. Check this out.
"Kirk Lyons for ANV Commander"?
Sort of like Babe Ruth pointing at where his home run is going...
Anonymous sources have been talking about a plan. The administration hasn't.
There is a difference...
"Peace" is possible in the Middle East.
We wound up with a civilized Germany and Japan because, first we beat the pants off of them, and then we rebuilt them more or less in our image.
I don't think we had it all thought out on December 8, or even on D-Day. Job one was "beating the pants off of them". Job two, rebuilding them, sort of took care of itself when the time came.
We have Iraqi military and science defectors telling us that this megalomaniac is feverishly working to develop WMD. Intel has confirmed that Muhammed Atta visted Hussein linking him to 9/11. He is blatantly violating the terms of the Gulf War's end by now allowing U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs, and yet we still have those on the Left and Right who say that we're not provoked and/or have no evidence that he's doing anything wrong.
Like I said, what a bunch of panty-waist limp-wrists.
It's disgusting!
There's a time for peace and a time for war.
Lock and load.
This alleged link has no credibility. First, the 9/11 terrorists did not need the help of the Iraqi government. Second, terrorists are not going to discuss their plans in the open in a restaurant in Prague.
The "50,000 special forces" figure is bogus, which renders the rest of his commentary somewhat questionable. It is not clear that he is simply engaging in hyperbole, which would be forgiveable, but still off the mark.
If the 50,000 refers to all naval and air force and army personnel assigned to the task, it is probably close to accurate.
I am not particularly worried about Saddam's 500,000 man army. Once the Republican Guard is neutralized, the remainder will sieze power and be the basis of the post-Saddam government. Within two months we will be sending Iraqi officers to the US for advanced management seminars.
And I was worried that you were going to cite a discredited source. By the way, Scott Ritter claims that Iraq does not represent a threat to our security.
"We" would not be controlling a damn thing. The best we could hope for is quasi-US companies (really multi-nationals, Exxon, Chevron being the prime examples) gaining contracts to produce and sell the oil. This would be a benefit as long as they keep it flowing, no matter what the remaining OPEC members demand, but corporations have been known to restrict supply to increase profits. And those profits (aside from whatever taxes the Treasury does collect) won't be going to the US, but to *surprise* the same elites that made this whole thing necessary in the first place by placing the US in defense of the House of Saud in 1991. So, unless we create a national oil company to exploit our new-found spoils, with the spigots unfettered and all profits going into the Treasury, young Americans will be in harm's way for corporate profits.
Thus, a bullet in Saddam's head is the cleanest and most just means of achieving our stated goal. Invasion serves only a select few.
LTS
"...repeat the successes of Afghanistan in which 50,000 US Special Forces troops were able to beat a ragtag and poorly equipped Army of 47,000 Taleban and assorted Al Queda irregulars. " Try 1,500 SF.
As an aside and kudos to Vietnam Vets, During the battle of Hue, the Marines took on 6,000 NVA, killed 5,500 and lost 150 Marines. At Khe Sanh, over 10,000 enemy dead, maybe 15,000, at a cost of 200. The same working and middle class Americans that brought you mass production farming, auto assembly will now bring you, as in the past, death. Enemies never learn.
Scott Ritter. You talk about a traitor.
And we dismiss it for good reason. The members of my local gun club could probably destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard in less than a week.
Listening to the Novaks and Buchanans of the world spout off a decade ago about how we shouldn't undersestimate the Iraqi war machine was laughable, and they (of course) were shown to be dead wrong. Now, a decade later, the Iraqi forces are at a fraction of the "strength" the were then, so what makes (some) people think that things will be more difficult for us this time? The fact that Saddam probably has a lot more WMD's and is mad enough to use them? Well, that's precisely why it's in our best interest to destroy whatever is left of their army and overthrow their regime. And as a bonus, other regional repressive regimes might just decide to change their crimminal behavior after seeing the ease with which we conduct and conclude our campaign.
Yep, and a rich traitor at that. That schmuck is being paid off in a big way.
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.