Posted on 03/14/2003 9:16:56 AM PST by Sir Gawain
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:01:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush told the United Nations on Sept. 13
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Yeah, and Desert Shield stretched throughout the fall. So much for their pet two-month Desert Storm deployment theory.
The first units on site were used defensively, because they didn't have enough troops and equipment in place for an offense. It took WEEKS to get the tanks, etc., for the 24th to the ships in Savannah and then over to the Gulf.
When the ground war began, though, the 24th was definitely used offensively.
I have a bet with him, as do some others. Amazingly, although if we don't invade or see Saddam exiled or assassinated by April 1, at which point I lose my bet, I somehow am quite calm, unlike many of the handwringers and armchair generals here.
I believe The Great Satan has read more into events than are warranted. Scooter Libby's belief on the source of the anthrax is not the most expert in the administration, and I didn't really see them covered in the book. Woodward has a habit of picking and choosing phrases, which are not deniable but are inserted in text to push his theories along. I don't know that Woodward has been back to the White House since his book was published, so I have no way of knowing what that situation is. However, I think Cheney's comment was true. At the time (right after September 11), we weren't ready to attack a state sponsor of anthrax. Right now I believe we are.
President G W Bush decided to press for an Iraqi war since at least a month before September, 2002, when the UN approved Resolution 1441.
Powell took forever to negotiate a unanimous resolution.
Nevertheless, by January 15, 2003, did we have all our military ducks in the row?
Well, let's look at your offensive versus defensive criteria. The 101st Airborne was one of the "defensive" units deployed, and was in-place by the end of October. It took a total of five months before there was enough force in place to shift from a defensive to an offensive posture - or, in other words, NOT MUCH DIFFERENT than what has happened now - and since the military is in worse shape now than it was in 1991, your theory kinda falls apart. Facts have that impact sometimes.
On what do you base your belief that we are now prepared to attack a state sponsor of anthrax? I'm curious, because your posts are always well thought out. Do you mean that we are ready to prevent an anthrax attack, that we can minimize the damage of an anthrax attack, or that we are ready to absorb the potential casualties of a successful anthrax attack?
Let's see what you are quibbiling about here. Desert Shield and the buildup for Desert Storm lasted from, say, mid-August to late February, when the ground attack commenced. About six months. Now, how much time has expired since Sepember 2002? October, November, December, January, February, March. Hmmm - seems like six months to me.
Time for you to take off your mittens when you need to perform complex calculations...
TGS can speak for himself, but since I basically agree with his premises, I need to point out what seems an inconsistency in your statement. First, you say TGS believes the deployment is "nothing but show". Then, you TGS believes the deployment is in preparation for a 2004 invasion. Which is it? If it's preparation for a major invasion, just later than most freepers would like, how is it simultaneously just for "show"? I don't believe TGS is arguing that the troops will be called home, and then redeployed in 2004. Just that they're going to have to deal with being deployed for awhile.
President G W H Bush did not wait for a UN resolution to start military movement.
Every day Bush delays gives our counter-terrorism forces another day to locate and defang Hussein's terrorist-delivered retaliation threat. As much as the President cares about the safety of our troops, I believe he cares about the safety of our civilians even more.
Well, it's interesting that you are now asking for TWO extra months. You said that Bush was planning to go to war against Iraq a month before the September UN resolution - which, last I checked, would have been August - which, if you really, really need that extra month to make your point, would mean that it has taken Bush seven months instead of six from the time he decided. So you are now quibbling, under the loosest interpretation possible BY YOUR OWN TALKING POINTS, that Bush has ** GASP ** taken a FULL MONTH LONGER than his pappy to field an offensive military force - and his objective is not to liberate a runt country like Kuwait, but to invade a country the size of California.
Has it occurred to you just how ridiculous this line of attack is?
The truth is not a negative thing. I agree militarily with olinr
Sometimes a grassroots push is necessary to get action. Delays cause the US to be vulnerable to "opportunistic" terrorism ironically, from the anti-war groups in our own country. Delay also makes our troop concentrations vulnerable in Kuwait and wherever they are. Delay causes loss of life if it strengthens our enemy's defenses.
Finally, the repeated utterance of ..."this is the final warning"...is making our foreign policy hostage to Ghana and Upper Volta and Gambia and who knows what third world hell-hole wants to yank our chain.
Fer Christ's sake, this administrsation is making Carter's look decisive!
Sorry, but 130 degree temps for several months would be highly dehabilitating to forces attempting to stage. Bush is cutting it closer than I would like, but Turkey kinda screwed us, so it's taking a bit of time to adjust.
I've about had enough on this thread. You folks can rip into Bush for taking ONE ENTIRE MONTH longer than his pappy did to stage forces in Kuwait. I think I'll see if I can find something more productive to do, such as arrange the shirts in my closet in some kind of chromatic sequence.
The posters on this thread who believe we will attack Iraq sometime after this summer and the posters on this thread who believe we should have attacked Iraq six months ago perhaps should address each other on this manner instead of dirtboy -- who seems to be getting it from both directions.
IMO, like dirtboy and MM, we were not ready 6 months ago and we are ready now. The threat of WMD retaliation by Sadaam and al Qaeda has NOW been reduced greatly as Cheney alluded to several weeks ago. The attack on Iraq will happen shortly.
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.