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

To: efnwriter
Thanks for responding. I appreciate your attention enlightened response.

As for Norman Schwartzkopf's opinion, check this link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-387997,00.html. It is believed that Schwartzkopf is speaking not only for his self but for the senior military leadership in the Pentagon who cannot speak out.

And I also appreciate your humbleness. But I believe Scocroft is correct that any WMD that Hussein were to export would have "Baghdad as a return address". Absent any other apparent substantial evidence that Hussein is an imminent threat, this act alone would provide all that is needed to take out Hussein and do it with just about unanimous consent of the world and the nation. As Scocroft points out, Hussein is a survivor first.

I do not oppose military action to remove Hussein. I do oppose a unilateral approach. People have banded together since the beginning of time for mutual aid and support. Attacking Iraq without the support of the rest of the world would make the U.S. appear to be "rogue" to the rest of the world. We don't need that from not only a political but an economic perspective.

As much as many people do not like it, reality is that we are interdependent on the rest of the world in order to maintain our standard of living and to secure peace for ourselves and our friends. We need to demand immediate access for U.N. inspectors and complete transparency in Iraq. Once Iraq fails to comply we should push hard for a U.N. resolution supporting force against Iraq. Then its "Katy, bar the door!"

. One more thing, I read somewhere that the cost of Gulf I was upwards of $600 million in 1991. An operation against Iraq today would likely exceed $1 billion. In 1991 most of the tab was picked up by our allies. Today that's a $1 billion hit that we're going to absorb alone. Why not a little patience here? Do the smart thing by getting international support and spreading the cost around. After all, if terrorists would fly a plane into the WTC, why not the Eiffel Tower or any other Euro landmark. Islamic terrorists have no love for Europe either. Our allies would have as much to gain as we do from removing Hussein. Why pay for it ourselves?

99 posted on 08/19/2002 9:27:24 AM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]


To: DaGman
I love this site - the dialogue is usually intelligent and straightforward.

In reply, I believe we would love international help, but help or not we have to do it. Regardless, Saddam will fall. I can't disagree with Schwartzkopf - and thanks for the link - but he is really only quoted in the article as saying “It is not going to be an easy battle but it would be much more effective if we didn’t have to do it alone,”
So I interpret this not to say he "joined a growing number of senior US military and political figures yesterday who are opposed to a unilateral invasion of Iraq " as the writer stated in the opening paragraph (for his own political lurposes) but instead he is speaking as a comander should - get all the help you can, get overwhelming force to protect as many of your peoples' lives as possible, before you go. I also interpret his quotes as the battle will happen ( His quote is "It's not going to be an easy battle ) so he knows it is a go. He just liked the help in GUlf I.

Read another superb Gulf I interview with him at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/commanders.html

By the way, I believe the correct estimated figure for the War on Terrorism budget is 80 billion, but I also hear Bush will propose a tax cut after Labor Day - YES!
105 posted on 08/20/2002 2:35:16 AM PDT by efnwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]

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