Posted on 12/25/2002 12:05:09 AM PST by Stavka2
I don't write vanities, not normally not ever, but there's a first for everything. Here's a list of questions I want answered and most Americans should too.
Just a few questions that no one is seeming to ask since it's a Republican run show and not democRats.
The US had three gadgets in early July 1945: Trinity test, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. August 10, 1945 there were none left, though Oak Ridge had produced enough fuel by late November 1945 to make another Plutonium ('Fatman') device.
Where's the money coming from? No Shiete it's from us, is it coming in the form of cancelled pork, trimmed programs, massive debt spending or the usual new taxes? If so, what effect do you think the other two will have on your future economic prospects, because if you think that it doesn't matter, then you're way off the mark.
So while making vague statements about my questions, be a little more specific, which need the fortune teller? Which are vague? Please, you got the ball in your court.
To which my mother always taught me the choice of answers were ...
"Why not?"
OR
"Because I said so."
I agree with you that the President should have asked for a formal declaration of war on 9/12/2001. Against what entity? Against Islam. Sort of a precedent-setter, but what the heck.
"Problem is, we aren't attacking the Islamists, that's the point. The Islamists are in Saudi Arabia"
Understood, and I cannot fathom why Saudi Arabia wasn't on the top of our list instead of Iran. As I have said several times, eventually we will have to deal with them all--Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran...may as well get it on.
"and a Marshal Plan (maybe, since no one will actually state the end game)."
My point is that we are under no obligation to "rebuild" or help our enemies in any way after the conflict. In fact, it would be semi-suicidal to do so. If we have any sanity left or understanding of realpolitik we should recognize that devastating them and leaving them that way is the best end-game, bleeding hearts to the contrary notwithstanding.
"I care, since it is my money in part going to this. And if you believe otherwise that some corps are going to invest, you are fooling yourself. The corps will be there, all right, to suck up US government funds for rebuilding, but it will still be the taxpayer who gets stuffed with the bill."
I assume by "corps" you mean the bad old corporations. Let us not pretend that these evil entities, so beloved of demagogues in need of straw men to attack, are 'behind' this. I find it risible that you think a U.S. Marshal [sic] Plan will be driven by the military-industrial complex.
This is World War IV. As I stated, eventually we will have to deal with all of them, and it will not be pretty. No mercy, no quarter, no prisoners. And no "nation building" afterwards.
"Kurdistan...hmm, well, obviously you don't understand Geopolitics do you? Kurdistan is mostly run by the very people who like Osama. Furthermore, check the map, if fighting starts there, that cuts off one of the two main supply routes to US forces, not a good thing.
"If Iran invades southern Iraq, it cuts off the other major US supply route and puts pressure on Kuwait and Saudi oil fields, again, back to step one. Do you get it now?"
Yada yada yada. We take out the major players--including Iran--and the problem becomes a non-problem. And if we find ourselves inconvenienced somewhere like Kurdistan...perhaps you should review our progress in Desert Storm.
"Well, in one statement, you have just blown the reason for the whole war. If he is afraid of what the Isrealies would do to him with 200 nukes, why would he not be afraid of what the US could do to him with 10,000 nukes?"
As I said, I do not understand why Iraq is on the top of the list versus, say, Saudi Arabia--which will have to be reduced eventually. On the other hand, I am not privy to the information that Bush has. Perhaps his production of chemical and bio agents is what Bush is really worried about. Laughable that Blix will find anything. In any event it is Saddam who--among all of our enemies--is growing stronger in the weapons of terror and mass destruction the most rapidly. IMHO Saddam reasons that time is on his side--which is certainly correct--and Bush means to deny him more time. Bush senior should have wiped him out ten years ago, which is plain for anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
"the none [sic] existent Taliban killed one american soldier last week, and injured 4 others."
The Taliban as a coherent and organized entity is kaput. If somebody stands up and waves a Taliban flag or yells, "This is from the Taliban, American dogs," this does not mean much. Recall if you will that Japanese soldier who they finally flushed out of a cave in the 1980's...still fighting WWII by himself. It's over for the Tallies.
"Go check what the US signed in the NATO accords, because it will do this for even smaller pest holes like Liuthiania and Estonia and Latvia. Or did you miss that whole NATO agreement, which has been around for 52 years?"
Strange. I missed all the nuclear action in Bosnia.
"Because those Joses hold the spicket [sic] to 16% of the US oil, and that is a very good reason to support anti-Communist rebellions, especially when they threaten to nationalize the enterprises and cut off the US."
An easy howler. There is a world oil market. Think of it as a plenum full of oil. Oil is fungible. The Joses are gonna sell the oil to somebody and that means that whoever buys it will not be tapping some other source, which means that that oil will be on the market, available for purchase by anyone with money...including Texaco and Chevron.
--Boris
Also, since you say that it's the duty to ask the President to request the Congress to declare war before he takes any action, could you please point out to me where, in the Constitution, it states that that is one of the duties of the Executive Branch? Can you please designate the section which requires such action?
You must have a newer edition of the Constitution if yours says that the President is obligated to request a declaration of war before taking military action. All I can find is that it designates him as the Commander-in-Chief.
So you were walking down the street one day minding your own business when Joey (unprovoked) came up to you and flew a passenger fist into your left eye? Smash his toys, GWV, and make him think twice before bothering you again. :-)
A belated Merry Christmas...and have a Happy New Year!
I simply said your questions were vague. You are very defensive. But I will respond to your questions, as requested.
1. Why hasn't the upcoming Iraqi war been publically debated? I don't get it. What more do you want? We elect leaders and they make the decisions on foreign policy. Sometimes good, and sometimes bad. But overall, I believe that the war is everywhere. Even being stationed somewhere around the globe, and I am blasted 24-7 with news on Iraq. Now I know this is not "public debate", but again, what are you looking for here?
2. Why hasn't Congress done it's job on the war? Done what job? Appropriate money? According to the War Powers Resolution, Congress is empowered "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" and "To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces," while the president "shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." These clauses seem contradictory and have been under much debate since WWII, specifically whether presidents unilaterally can commit troops into military conflicts to preserve the nation. Basically, it's up for debate and has been how much role Congress has in war. What exactly do you want them to do?
3. What are the actual costs going to be to the taxpayers of this war, and I don't been some ball park figures but detailed cost estimates? Best/worst case scenarios? Where is the money coming from? I've seen estimates from 9 to 20 billion dollars per month depending on how many soldiers we have deploying, how much help we get (pathetically little, as usual), length of air campaign, etc. The money is coming from taxes. Which tax? Will something be cut? I don't know but it is a valid question.
4. How much largeness will the US oil companies and defense industries receive from this war? I don't know, and I doubt that is a statistic any of us will see anytime soon. If you are looking for ulterior motives, make no mistake, we do almost nothing without some sort of ulterior motive. Doesn't make what we do wrong.
5. What happens if the Iraqi oil fields are destroyed and what will be the cost of reopenning them? Green liberals will go crazy and blame us and the cost to reopen them will be 24.7 billion dollars.
6. What will be the cost of rebuilding Iraq and what is/if there is the plan for this? Unfortunately, we will probably get fronted on the bill. It all depends on how much damage we cause, how much damage Hussein causes. I see where you're going with this... "who's going to pay up?" Again, it is going to be the American taxpayer. What else is new?
7. What exact form of government will replace Iraqi Saddam/Batha rule? As boris says, it shouldn't matter to us. But that's the easy answer, the slightly more difficult answer is a puppet government that caters to the American leadership.
8. Why is the US negotiating with Iranian mullahs for the government, members of the very organization it opposes in Iran? Why did we side with USSR in WW2? I am assuming you are referring to the "pact" made with Iran to return all aircraft downed in Iranian territory during a possible war. Think of it this way... there are two bullies in the schoolhouse, you pay one to shut up and leave you alone for a day so you can knock out the other. After you knock that one out, then you can take care of bully number 2.
9. Why is the US negotiating with exiled Iraqi generals who have human rights records worse then Saddam, to include "The Chemist"? Same as above. I agree that this is somewhat pragmatic, but sometimes you have to choose a lesser evil. I'm not defending it, but you aren't asking me to, you are asking me to explain why.
10. What happens if Kurdistan declares independence...will this be supported? What if, what if, what if. What if Mexico attacks us whilst we bomb Iraq? I'm not a fortune teller.
11. What happens if Turkey invades Kurdistan and begins a whole sale slaughter? "Mecca lecca hi- Mecca hiney ho. Let me rub my crystal ball here..."
12. What happens if Iran invades southern Iraq? Then the world will implode upon itself into a bowling ball sized object.
13. Since Saddam is such a mad dog and has had chemical weapons for over twenty years, why hasn't he launched them on Israel? Who knows the thought pattern of a mad man? He probably knows beneath all of that insanity that it would doom him.
14. How will taking out Saddam, a socialist, make the US safer from Islamic terrorists financed by Saudi Arabia and various other emerites? I agree that there are other countries badly in need of a head toppling, but that doesn't make this course of action wrong. No matter what country we went after first, some people will always find a better one to invade. If we were going after Saudi Arabia now, then another group would be talking about the Iraqi atrocities and how they use chemical weapons and killed Kurds, why don't we go after them?
15. Why have the Saudies been allowed to amass WMD and over 100 missiles? over 15 nations have biological and/or chemical weapons (I can't remember the exact numner). It happened. Everyone will get theirs soon enough though. BUT, only one country in that area (to my knowledge) has ever used them.
16. What is the end state in Afghanistan? I really don't know. It's a good question that the government really needs to answer.
17. What happens if Taliban launches offensives during Iraqi war? Then I will become vice manager at the local Pizza Hut. I don't know.
18. Where will reinforcements come from since all three participating divisions will also be in Iraq? No one knows (except the highest echelons, I'm sure) which divisions are going yet. That all depends, but we have plenty more than 3 divisions in the world. My bet would be from Germany.
19. How much is the US willing to spend to rebuild Afghanistan? Valid question Americans should be demanding an answer to.
20. What happens if Pakistan goes rouge and has nukes? Do you want to be personally briefed on every contingency plan for every worst case scenario in the world today? I think you meant rogue, too. Truth is, it would take weeks just to get the powerpoint presentations together on one computer for you.
21. Why have oil prices been allowed to climb up to the highest point in 2 years and retail had its worst season in 30 years? I don't know this.
22. Why are foreign software engineers still being hired and imported at autrocious rates while domestic workers sit in unemployement? Free market.
23. Why are Mexicans still being supported as illegals in the US? Great question. I hate that this is so true.
24. Why is the federal government still pushing for billingual services to these illegals? Because of liberal garbage. Why it's continuing boggles my mind.
25. Why was NATO enlargement not even debated seriously, when this causes the US to willingly go to nuclear war for countries such as Romania. When this will cost the tax payer twice as much as last time, to the tune of $65 billion dollars, to subsidize the US military industry in selling systems to poor countries? I don't see this (nuking people over a Romanian conflict) happening any time soon.
26. Why are US troops still in the Balkins and the US is still backing the KLA? We shouldn't be. We need the answer. Balkans.
27. Why is the US still giving money to Arafat? Good. I need to know this too.
28. Why is the US still spending globs of money, around $10 billion/year, defending Saudi Arabia when it refuses to cooperate with the US? Because we need oil. Cut that any way you wish, but if you take Iraq out of the equation entirely, then you need to get your oil from somewhere.
29. Why are anti Chavez, pro democracy demonstrators not receiving any help? We should help them. We're not because we only have so many forces that have to be ready to fight two wars on two seperate fronts. I hope that's the reason.
30. Why is the Zimbabwean anti Communist opposition not receiving any help? Same.
31. Why did the Rumsfield inquiry into waste, fraud and abuse in the US military and National Guard come to such a sudden halt? I see it every day. This inquiry should not have stopped, but I imagine that they're all very busy right now and the inquiry will pick back up once things settle down (2 years? 10 years? 100 years?)
32. Why is air safety in US airports just as much of a joke still as it was before? While I agree it isn't where it should be, I know that it has gotten more difficult to get onto an airplane. I had to take my shoes off 16 times last time I took a 4 leg trip...
Perhaps I was hasty. I see your point, I think. You want answers and many of your questions should be answered. I am standing by my assertion, however, that there are way too many open ended questions here. From Pakistan to Turkey to Kurds to nuclear war in Romania, there are too many open ended, "what if" questions to deal with.
Of course it should matter to us, depending on what is set up and or how it is set up will matter how long we will stay there and how much it will cost. Further, it will affect the whole of the region. Note: Afghanistan, the only thing keeping the leadership alive is US body guards.
Most of these questions weren't asked for me to get the perfect answer, they were raised for people to discuss. Well, what happens if Kurdistan declares independence? Hmm, we'd better start figuring things out before shooting bullets and throwing caution to the wind. If you think the leadership has it all figured out, then don't look at past blunders, because often enough they don't figure things out.
Where will reinforcements come from since all three participating divisions will also be in Iraq? No one knows (except the highest echelons, I'm sure) which divisions are going yet. That all depends, but we have plenty more than 3 divisions in the world. My bet would be from Germany.
Well that illustrates the problem, yes there are other divisions, and they are all heavy. With most of the marine expiditionary units and most of XVIII ABC tied up in Iraq, who will be the fire brigade? A tank division? Hardly, not to mention the infrastructure needed to move them there, the time would be in months not days.
Why are foreign software engineers still being hired and imported at autrocious rates while domestic workers sit in unemployement? Free market.
This is no different then the Mexican question, except for high tech. The High Tech visas are supposed to suppliment a lack of high tech work force, not replace it, yet this is exactly what major corps and Congress are doing.
Why was NATO enlargement not even debated seriously, when this causes the US to willingly go to nuclear war for countries such as Romania. When this will cost the tax payer twice as much as last time, to the tune of $65 billion dollars, to subsidize the US military industry in selling systems to poor countries? I don't see this (nuking people over a Romanian conflict) happening any time soon.
Whether it happens or not, you agree with the price tag?
There are open ended questions and they are meant to stir debate, after all this is what FR is supposed to be for. Following one party line or another does not make a republic free, but a slave of a different shade.
Actually, I could care less about what type of vehicle people drive. I also have no problem with people living within the standard of living that they can afford. Unfortunity, our standard of living is based on consumerism and credit and our entire economy is dependent on the expansion of both. This false "wealth creation" leads to excesses. I have no debt and depend on the government for no handouts, therefor I live within my means.
You really do need to break the chains of your own linear thinking. You keep going back to the party line play book for things like SUV's and nonsense like that. In your own small mind, if someone questions a war with Iraq, they are against SUV's and need to be monks. You really are a silly person.
Richard W.
Great line there. Very good point... BTW, they will not tie up the XVIII ABC in its entirety in one area. Not a chance.
Well, since you are soooo smart, you must have missed these while you were at it...
or
A historic synopsis of Stavka and the Russian Army in WW1
Do try a little harder next time.
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.
