Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Administration Plan to Invade Iraq Dubious at Best
The American Partisan ^ | August 16, 2002 | David T. Pyne

Posted on 08/16/2002 12:37:18 PM PDT by rightwing2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 381-390 next last
To: Texasforever
Let United States military personnel have country wide free access to all facilities capable of hiding or producing WMD.

I don't want the US to be a World Govt, an empire demanding access to every nation. Israel and India and, I assume, Pakistan, have WMD. So does Russia, and possibly the Urkraine and Turkey. Saddam is surrounded by nations with WMD. Let that region police itself.

Time to declare the Gulf War and "War On Terror" over, and go home. Back to being a republic, not an empire.

241 posted on 08/16/2002 10:43:28 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
So you want a region wide war? Yeah let's do that. Why would I be wrong about Ritter? I asked legitimate questions and they were not answered.
242 posted on 08/16/2002 10:44:33 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
David Pyne continues to dissappoint with regards to accuracy of military knowledge in his writings. I have only read a few of his articles posted here, but he is not as expert on military affairs as he thinks himself to be.

For example

Recent news reports indicate that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an unprecedented move, has locked out the Joint Chiefs of Staff from further planning for the planned US invasion of Iraq.

FYI the JCS is not responsible for war planning. That is a responsibility of the area CINC, in this case CENTCOM. JCS is charged with providing the men, materials, etc to support CINC requirements and interface with the executive branch and congress as the pentagon lobby for the services.

In short, if the US were to commit the 82nd Airborne to the capture of Baghdad unassisted by heavier armor and artillery formations, it would undoubtedly result in the highest number of combat casualties since the Vietnam War.

Even a beginner student of military arts would not put a light infantry airborne unit against armor. Does Pyne think US planners would?

These articles lose credibility fast on statements like these. I am sure there will be defenders of Pyne, but I am not impressed. There is a professional organization running under Bush/Rumsfeld despite the deficit the military encountered during the Klintoon years. Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to spin down that fact.

243 posted on 08/16/2002 10:47:15 PM PDT by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
Time to declare the Gulf War and "War On Terror" over, and go home. Back to being a republic, not an empire.

Thank you Pat Buchanan. We didn't start this dust up but we will finish it.

244 posted on 08/16/2002 10:48:33 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Selara
And nothing would unite Islam more than us attacking the most innocent nation first. Do you not realize that we are the Soviet Union in that region? We support and prop up corrupt regimes all over the Arab world to stave off Radical Islam rule. We support the Mullahs of the house of Suad, the corrupt leaders of Eygpt, and the rest because the popular opinion is totally against us. We are like the Soviets in Eastern Europe. We support an elite and repressive structure in the Mideast that Al QUeada and the rest of Radial Islam capiralizes on. They love the fact that we support the House of Saud, or Jordan, Or Murbarhak. To Islamic radicals- we prop up oppressive governments with aid all throughout their lands. And they are right. And to top it off we support "jews" and Isreal.

I support Isreal and will always. But to attack Iraq is insane. And it makes no sense. It may be gratifying in some cathartic sense but it will not solve Islamic terrorism. It will only ger worse. We are ppicking out Iraq because it is easy. Our elite doesn't have a relatinship with them. Our Foggy bottom diplomats are used to dealing with Saudis and not Iraqis. We don't have a press anymore but press handout readers. ANd our policy wonks have always wanted a war long before 9/11 with Iraq as a means of establishing their "mideast western Athens" in Islamic culture.

245 posted on 08/16/2002 10:55:18 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Yep- he is traitor. He disagreed with you - that must enough to be a traitor. Got your tree and rope yet?
246 posted on 08/16/2002 10:57:23 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
ANd it soesn't matter what arabs we kill as long as we kill us some right?
247 posted on 08/16/2002 10:58:31 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Yep- he is traitor. He disagreed with you - that must enough to be a traitor. Got your tree and rope yet?

Where did I call him a traitor?

248 posted on 08/16/2002 10:59:44 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Oh sorry Jumped the gun- or rope - of your factual based arguments. That is yankee sarcasm for you slow folks.
249 posted on 08/16/2002 11:02:24 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Well- must apologize. YOu did not say what I thought. Sorry Sir. And have a good day.
250 posted on 08/16/2002 11:08:04 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
No problem.
251 posted on 08/16/2002 11:09:55 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
I guess I wouldn't be overly surprised to see some US leaders hauled before the International Criminal Court for engaging in a pre-emptive war of aggression against Iraq.

How would they be brought before a court in a city that the US would have nuked?

252 posted on 08/16/2002 11:17:59 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Why all the hand ringing about Iraq. It's going to happen soon. It won't take 250,000 troops, probably not 20,000. Consider that his military is not stupid and they are certainly not going to go through a Gulf War II. They know for sure that they will get their butts kicked. My guess we will strike at the WMD that we know about, cut the communications, and negotiate a deal with the Generals that will cooperate - 90 % of them want Saddam out. Then someone we tell us where we can find Saddam - we only need one sellout - so payem a few million for the information.
253 posted on 08/16/2002 11:29:45 PM PDT by agincourt1415
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: ProudAmerican2
Kind of hart for me to be an anti-war type when I served my country in the army for four years and supported the war in Afghanistan.

Seems to me that General Benedict Arnold was the hero of the Battle of Saratoga, and the heroic leader of the attack on Canada, and the defense of Lake Champlain. He was one of George Washington's closest friends in the Revolutionary army, but all of this did not prevent him from becomming a traitor.

In the war that is coming, you will either support your country at war, you will be neutral, or you will fight against your country. If you really are working for the military, they have ways of dealing with people in that last category.

254 posted on 08/16/2002 11:33:33 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
In the war that is coming, you will either support your country at war, you will be neutral, or you will fight against your country.

Ture. But at Nuremberg, the US argued that sometimes is it morally and legally wrong to support one's country in war.

255 posted on 08/16/2002 11:41:44 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
I firmly believe that if the military was in charge of making the decisions to go to war

Yes, we would be living in a military dictatorship.

256 posted on 08/16/2002 11:43:22 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
But at Nuremberg, the US argued that sometimes is it morally and legally wrong to support one's country in war.

Fine, but for those who fight against it, who are in the military, there will be a firing squad.

257 posted on 08/16/2002 11:46:30 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
We support and prop up corrupt regimes all over the Arab world to stave off Radical Islam rule.

True. Is it not so that Algeria had a free election about a decade ago. Radical Muslims won, and were shortly overthrown in a military coup. Rumor had it that MI6, the Mossad, and the oil interests supported the military coup. And that these same Western interests help the shieks and dictators maintain power all over the mideast.

I don't know how much of this is true, but I don't believe the West wants real democracy in the mideast. They only want democracy to the extent that the people elect "leaders" we approve.

I'm sick of being lied to by our govt. I'm sick of The State expanding at home and abroad. Every day we walk further down the path of Imperial Rome -- bread and circuses to keep the masses complacent, foreign wars in distant lands.

I prefer Browne over Buchanan, but Buchanan termed it right. We are exchanging our Constitutional Republic for a corrupt empire.

258 posted on 08/16/2002 11:49:44 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: RedwM
I think we will be reeling

Why would we be reeling if we drop a few nukes on Iraq?

259 posted on 08/16/2002 11:53:20 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: rightwing2
I hope that some of the government people who make military decisions consider some of my comments relating to Iraq.

If it is true that Iraq in recent years has been purchasing materials for the use of making WMD then we can conclude that he does indeed have them. Intelligence sources can trace such acquisitions and piece them together with satellite images of activities in geographical areas along with the reports of Iraqi defectors. Saddam has threatened to use WMD against us. He should be taken a lot more seriously than an airline passenger who threatens he has a bomb aboard. Based on Saddams past performance his threats are credible. We've incurred a devastating surprise attack by the enemy and the threat of additional large scale terrorist attacks are imminent.

With his arsenal of WMD along with his threats of using them against us while we are in puruit of terrorist enemies Saddam is no different from a suspected crimminal who points his gun at cops and while threatening to shoot. I am aboard for taking him out. I differ on the method, however.

What are the risks involved? If we send in a full-scale force where large groups of combatants are concentrated in small geographical areas including urban areas they may be exposed to the risk of unheard of decimation from poison gas attacks.

War tactics tend to mutate in successive wars. A fact that war planners tend to miscalculate. This is the first time where the entire U.S. civilian population thousands of miles away is exposed to widespread devastation from bio- chemical agents. With this major risk looming over our heads why are we considering a full-scale attack while we leave our flanks exposed to bio-chemical destruction. Our borders along Canada and Mexico are wide open. Terrorists are known to have entered our country over our unprotected borders. This makes no sense at all.

We find ourselves alone in our war against terrorism. Our European friends don't share our sense of commitment to our war against terrorism. Our Middle Eastern allies fear a democratic Iraq or Palestine for that matter. This means we would have to bear the full cost of the war which could mire us into a deeper recession. We need to remain economically and militarily strong to deter our other enemies and to not encourage our potential enemies. Just as we have smart weapons, we need to develop equally smart strategic wars plans. We need our best military and intelligence minds to devise a new revolutionary style of action to rid Iraq of their existing maniacal ruling clique. I suggest we implement a major destablizing effort both economically and militarily. I would like to see an unrelenting ground terrorism effort put into effect targeting their government and military personnel and structures, and all war materials. If we can weaken their infrastructure enough we may be able to convince Iraqi citizens that the dictatorship is not invincible. It may entice the citizens to form resistance groups against the dictatorship.

I believe we can devise a plan of attack that will not expose our citizens to mass destruction or economically bankrupt us. I was amazed at all of the successful team work and strategies our government and allies concocted in the war against the Nazis. Why can't we devise an equally brilliant plan to rid the world of Saddam and all of the terrorist groups.

260 posted on 08/17/2002 1:14:50 AM PDT by Enough is ENOUGH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 381-390 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson