Posted on 02/07/2003 1:39:44 PM PST by carenot
What The Coming War Is Really About By J.J. Johnson Published 02. 6. 03 at 23:10 Sierra Time xxx This analysis may be troublesome to some, even considered treasonous by others. But before this nation commits thousands of troops and billions of dollars into this middle-eastern conflict, this author would like to go on record about the United States and it’s relationship with the rest of the world.
Let me say first (for the record) that I am still against the upcoming war with Iraq in its current form. If we do go to war, I will support our troops, and pray they come home safe. My reasons for not supporting this war has virtually NOTHING to do with the common argument made against it by those on the left and in other countries. I would, however like to walk everyone through this – slowly.
I have said (on the record), that if there was a clear link between Saddam Hussein and/or the nation of Iraq to the attacks on this country on September 11, 2001, not only would I support the war, but the annexation of Iraq upon its conclusion – and I wouldn’t even approach the UN for approval. To date, I have not seen this evidence.
In fairness, I think Secretary of State Colin Powell did an excellent job at the United Nations Wednesday explaining the position of the United States. As it stands now, the U.S. is gaining support from other “governments” of the need to take action. They still lack support from the majority of the people – even in the U.S. Why is this?
No doubt we are not being told everything. Perhaps if we don’t take any action against Iraq, we may suffer another attack – possibly worse than 9/11. But we can also conclude that officials from other nations have been briefed of “the threat” (if any) from our officials. Still, there is not 100% backing for this adventure. This means that other nations feel that even IF the U.S. may be attacked again, they simply don’t care, or aren’t willing to put their own necks on the line to save America. This tells me there is something about this country that is pissing a lot of people off. But let’s take Iraq point by point first.
The U.S. demonstrated Iraq is manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction. “They have been doing this in violation of UN mandates for years”, Washington says. So what about the other nations? There is Israel and North Korea, to name a few. Both have nuclear weapons. No one dares tell Israel to disarm, and we merely “ask” North Korea. This is called a double standard.
Next, if Iraq has been getting under our skin all these years, what have these bombing runs been all about? I’ve even heard the pro-war pundits beat their chest about the fact that Iraq has repeatedly fired at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone. Of course, they haven’t hit one yet, but no matter. We keep flying over another country’s airspace, then get mad when something bad comes flying our way. Every time we Americans hear a report about attacks in the no-fly zone, we hear some kind of antimissile system was fired at us, or anti-radar pointed at us first. And we’ve been hearing this for over a decade.
Common Sense Test: Why would you keep firing at airplanes in the air KNOWING you have a low chance for success AND a high chance of ordinance coming right back at you – for over a decade? TEN YEARS, folks. Is there not one person in the Iraqi military that says, “Hey, this ain’t working” or “Ya know, losing all this antiaircraft stuff is getting really costly.”
No, Saddam’s just that stupid/crazy, right? And what the heck are we bombing over there anyway?
Here’s one for you: If the UN isn’t willing to enforce it’s own mandates, they why should the US keep “enforcing” a no-fly zone over Iraq?
Here's another: If Iraq can manage to hit one U.S. warplane in 10 years, how can they stop the U.S. from flying U-2 spy planes, that fly three times hire? As a matter of fact, with the new spy sattelite technology, who needs a U-2, anyway?
Next, as this is what really made me write this article: Saddam has announced that weapons will be handed out to civilians to help defeat any oncoming army. The ‘spin-meisters’ here are already saying that Saddam is doing this so that if the U.S. military attacks and shoots an armed civilian, He can then go onto the world stage and claim “Look! They’re shooting civilians!” – and the world would fall for it.
For those “spin-miesters”, here’s what your propaganda is showing: Any “brutal dictator” would know better than to allow his population to be ARMED. If Hussein were as ruthless as reported, we could all rest assured that once the population is armed, they would simply revolt against him.
Speaking of armed, I recall seeing reports from Baghdad the day after the last so-called election. I recall seeing Western video of women voting (without veils), counting the votes, and both men a women firing guns in the air from their own homes in celebration. Not something one would expect from a devoutly Muslim country (especially a brutal dictator), but it seems to be common in Iraq. I hear there’s even a sizeable Christian population there.
This brings me to my next point: Hussein has said, “there is no ties to al Queada”. Now, since these Jihad Freaks are making more threats toward the U.S. than even North Korea, if Saddam is behind the eight-ball, would he ADMIT that he was working with al-Queda to keep everyone at bay?
Other points:
Al-Queda has never made mention of Iraq in their threats.
Part of al-Queda’s quest was to overthrow ‘secular’ Arab governments and replace them with Islamic regimes. Iraq’s government is probably among the most secular in the Middle East next to Israel.
The BBC reported that while the US argued that Baghdad has links with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network - an assertion apparently undermined by a UK intelligence report leaked to the BBC. The top secret report argued that there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, which the US blames for the 11 September 2001 attacks.
Note: According to Powell, al-Qaeda are in Baghdad. capturing these folks or other actions doesn't require UN approval. Congress already gave the green light for these types.
I could go on there, but no need to belabor the point. The arguments being made to go to war with Iraq do not make sense. If they did, we should be carpet bombing North Korea right now. Here’s what the London Guardian said in Thursday’s edition:
North Korea is entitled to launch a preemptive strike against the US rather than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign ministry told the Guardian yesterday.
Warning that the current nuclear crisis is worse than that in 1994, when the peninsula stood on the brink of oblivion, a ministry spokesman called on Britain to use its influence with Washington to avert war.
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Preemptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."
So, let’s go bomb Iraq, why don’t we?
North Korea, by the way – CAN hit the United States from their own soil, but most readers probably knew that already. There has been some inside information leaking out about the possible loss of social order in North Korea that may be the cause of all their recent rhetoric, all the more reason for moving this matter higher up on the priority list.
So, we hear the line, “…if the U.S. attacks Iraq, and weapons of mass destruction are used against our forces, those responsible will be held for war crimes…”
In all fairness, forgive me for saying that the above statement is among the most arrogant I’ve ever heard from any government. If you attack a sovereign nation, they can and will probably hit back with whatever is in their arsenal. Holding a Iraqi General on a "war crime" for using what he had at his disposal to stop a foreign aggression would be harder than it is now to convince folks of the need to attack in the first place. You see, throughout history, nations have built up arsenals to make the would-be attacker REFRAIN from attacking them. Let’s make sense of the Pentagon’s argument: We have nukes to deter any attack against us. Another nation MAY have a nuke, let’s kill them before they used it on us (even though no threat of a first strike has been made).
Reality: Saddam Hussein reported was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. We can assume this means he supports the mass murder of Israelis citizens and military personnel. The U.S. Is now saying Saddam may give or sell weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Common Sense question #2: If the latter were true, then why hasn’t there been a WMD attack in Israel via suicide bombers? My guess: If he had WMD with the intend to use them, Israel is an easier and closer target.
The argument: “Saddam wouldn’t dare do that else he’d face Israel retaliation.”
The response: Then wouldn’t the same apply true for the United States?
Let’s look at Pakistan. Here’s a country that was high on the terrorist watch list as late as September 10, 2001. They have nukes. They have threatened to use them again their adversary, India. They are known to harbor ‘terrorists’, and recently elected (that’s right – they have a democratic process there) a new parliament which has demanded the Pakistani leader remove U.S. troops from their soil. And a little history lesson about Pakistan: You may have forgotten back during the previous administration when missiles were fired into Afghanistan to get a certain woman off the front page. Well, you may have also forgotten that at least one of those “cruise missiles” landed as a “dud” in Pakistan. So, not only do they have nukes, we can also assume they have the ability to deliver one – at least 1000 miles.
THIS WHOLE FOREIGN MESS IS MAKING NO SENSE. AM I THE ONLY PERSON SEEING THAT??
Do Americans support military action for their own defense? Of course we do – when it's in our best interest. Hence the question: “Don’t all other nations have that right?” Americans I’ve talked to are most concerned, not about the WMD’s that may be in Iraq, but the WMD’s that may be already here. This is caused, in part, due to lack of attention at our national borders – borders that seem to take a low priority in this war. There is also the matter of an economic situation that seems to getting worse.
This war is not about oil. If we needed a war for oil, I'd suggest sending the military up to Alaska to shoot caribou. You never know, they're sitting on a bunch of oil and may acquire WMD's someday, too.
Unlike the typical political pundit, I don’t blame any political party per se – but this institution of government and society as a whole. Major companies are reporting losses day by day, while more and more businesses are getting shipped elsewhere. It is more than just NAFTA and GATT causing this. Government regulations and litigation here in the United States is making it all but impossible maintain a large workforce at meaningful wages. To put it simply, it makes more sense (dollar & sense) to hire cheap labor elsewhere. The government alone is not to blame here. Americans have the right to buy the best products for their needs. Unfortunately, many of those products are not made here anymore. Thus, our wealth leaves the country, too.
Americans also see their own country waging another continuing losing battle – against substances some deem illegal (drugs). While their own neighbors, Mexico and Canada, have all but ended their war on some drugs, only the U.S. seeks more funding to support an increase in their anti-drug efforts. So long as there is an addiction, there is no end to this war, either. According to our government, it is more important to create even more enemies around the globe than just look at reality.
And so, let’s line them all up against the wall so we know what we’re dealing with before we draw swords:
North Korea: Threatening nuclear first strikes (against us); threatening to wage war if WE don’t do business with them; and blaming us for their own system going into chaos.
The Jihad – They are everywhere and anywhere while we all sit on pins and needles.
South America: only a matter of time before that place turns into a powderkeg– due in great part to our drug war.
UN – count the real “allies” on one hand.
Okay – here goes America: I think this is a bit more than being the big kid on the block that everyone wants to knock around “just because”. We, as Americans, have got to start admitting that either we, or this government (possibly both) are doing something that just isn’t sitting well with the world. And don’t give me “they don’t like our freedom” crap, because more and more folks still want to come here and be free (for what its worth now).
As the saying goes, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. When this country was founded, the right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed to prevent a tyrannical government from talking hold here. Suppose (just suppose) that same government went far beyond their own people and began laying the yoke of tyranny on the rest of the world, resulting in “some” of those worldly folks taking the second amendment seriously and applying it on a global scale?
Answer: You’d have terrorists around the world hating America, and other nations turning their backs on us.
This may sound like I am “against” America, but I am not. I just know that as a chess player, you have to look at the entire board position (sometimes from your opponents point of view) to make sense of the game. In my humble opinion, the way the board looks these days, I don’t think we’re a superpower anymore. I don’t think we have the ability (let alone the right) to dictate our terms to the world anymore. The wonderful presentation from Colin Powell on 02.05.03, shows we have a serious ‘credibility gap’ with the rest of the world. Sure, bad guys can hit us again if we don’t take action – and NO ONE ELSE CARES. I for one do NOT like being in this position.
Something had to have motivated all this resentment against the United States (and if you don’t believe it exists, check out the State department’s web site to get an update on all the beautiful countries where Americans aren’t safe - and check the latest warning to Americans overseas). Right or wrong, this author feels this matter needs to be addressed first, before going further with anything else.
There are some reading this ready to fire back on how all of this is part of the Grand Conspiracy. These people think the U.S. government is the only enemy to them on earth, and everything is scripted to bring in some New World Order. Here’s the bad news for those folks: If there is any coming New World Order, there are billions of people across the globe acting as if every American is responsible for it. The difference is, rather than just fussing about it, they are doing something about it (or simply – not willing to help us out anymore).
What is this coming war about in my opinion? US. Getting rid of US – or at least our influence in the world. Don’t just watch CNN or Fox News. Look at the entire chess board, people. We’re the enemy in this one. With all the threats that are in the world, you don’t think some people are saying privately, “ya know, if those Americans weren’t around to bother anyone, we might all sleep easier for a change? They can take that “fighting for freedom and liberty jargon” and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
We’re fighting for our own survival. I’m starting to think our enemies are the ones fighting for “freedom and liberty” – from the United States Government (NOTE: this doesn't mean I agree our enemies). And since we pay the taxes and submit to all the laws, are we not part of the problem?
Yes, we’ve had our Glory Days, we’ve done a lot of good things around the world, and there are still a lot of good people here. But much of that ‘good’ isn’t reflected in either domestic or foreign policy. America may be in need of a good course correction – before we find ourselves on the wrong side of the gun one day.
One more thing: When I played chess, I never just laid down the king in resignation or offered a draw – without looking at the entire chessboard first.
©
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2003 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SierraTimes.com™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/06/jjjohnson.htm
Here's another reason. Bottom line there are many reasons for this conquest. I can only assume that if it is terrorism then our borders would logically be secured & how anyone could argue that point is farcical. I want the enemies toward me annihilated. So I will after much thought agree to send our troops over to accomplish such. Do we know the final outcome? No. But this nation is bankrupt. This is just staving off the inevitable - lower energy costs & less Mid East disruptions. Count me in. BTW the author at least should use the proper words -higher instead of hire.
And that is is the goal.
And I am delighted that you, an unknown poster on an internet board are in such a position as to post such things without any other proof than your own say-so.
Come back with some proof, or get lost.
The U.S. demonstrated Iraq is manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction. “They have been doing this in violation of UN mandates for years”, Washington says. So what about the other nations? There is Israel and North Korea, to name a few. Both have nuclear weapons. No one dares tell Israel to disarm, and we merely “ask” North Korea. This is called a double standard.
If I had to answer this I would say, "Why yes, there sure is a double standard. This isn't some classroom where everyone has to be treated equal and fairly. We support our friends and fight our enemies as we see fit, that is the way America keeps free and economically prosperous."
JJ goes on to say how Israel is NOT attacking Iraq even though Saddam pays the suicide/homicide bomber's families $25,000 after they commit their crimes. Well, there in itself shows the difference between a terrorist thug state like Iraq with nuclear weapons and Isreal with nuclear weapons. Which one should we trust not to use them?
The whole argument that we shouldn't go after Saddam because there are other bad dictators our WMD-armed nations out there is bogus. It is simply an argument then to do nothing. If you can't tell by now that a Saddamless Iraq isn't going to be good for our country and the rest of the world by now, you never will.
My source is logic, history, and current events.
However others including Christoper Hitchens and Thomas Friedman (of all people) have pointed to this strategy.
Not that anyone needs "sources." One simply needs to think it through.
Get back to your cornpone, Jethro.
Hillary, is that you???
Seriously, you can't be serious. (Or is that series?)
Well how about this:
We've let the Arabs play with their pan-Arabist and Islamist matches for 30 year, and the result was 9/11, Iranian mullahs, and Saudi Wahhabism. Not to mention the Sudan, Pakistani nukes, and the rest.
The Middle East is now in a downward cycle of Islamist barbarism and a thoroughly demented psychology of institutional evil.
In removing Saddam, we:
Remove the $25,000 payments to Palestinean suiciders.
Remove much of the funding to Arafat's degenerate PA.
Remove the cancerous pan-Arabic Baath party from Iraq.
Inspire the Iranians to remove their hated mullah government.
Delegitimize the notion of dictatorship in the Middle East.
(And finally) remove a potential source of WMD to terrorist groups.
There's actually much more to it than the above. But the bottom line is to halt the slide of the Middle East toward the nihilistic barbarism that's been its guiding course for the last 30 years.
These barbaric people were controlled and kept in check during the Cold War. They must be reigned-in again.
Good for you. Bravo for your thoughful comments.
Thank you, and when you are more rational, please don't hesitate to try harder.
Thank you, and when you are more rational, please don't hesitate to try harder.
Not necessarily.
What if the strategy is a cleansing of the entire mid-east by removing EVERY government that is dangerous to us.
Iraq has the largest army in the middle east. And the most weapons.
Invading and garrisonning Iraq also surrounds Iran. From our position there, we could destablize Iran into student led revolution, perhaps even arming the rebels across the border.
Now we have the territory from India to Saudi Arabia under our control, or occupied by friendly regimes.
The Saudi's are now sandwiched between our forces and Israel. Wanna bet how quick they'll negotiate?
Lastly, there's no way to deal with North Korea without using nuclear (preferably Neutron) weapons. The army is too close to Seoul, the artillery in range of millions of people, and we're way out numbered.
We can't simply use conventional air raids to take out their bunkered army, and nuclear research facilities. Has to be nuclear. So there's no reason to rush 200,000 men to the DMZ, when 200,000 won't be enough anyway - and when we have to make a move against NK, the attack comes from a sub or planes and is over in 15 minutes anyway.
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.