Cia Vets: No War In Iraq - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2003, 06:32 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

I have never argued that the USA should try to do things unilaterally. Any invasion of Iraq will have the support of many Arab allies. Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, all support the USA and have allowed extensive numbers of US soldiers to be stationed on their soil for an invasion of Iraq. Turkey will come around for the right price. If not, it will not preclude an invasion to disarm Saddam.
Turkey will come around for the right price????? This is rounding support. They have not yet announcced it is ok. AS a matter of fact, they have said they are not sure they can allow it without the blessing of the UN according to their constituion. The UAE is NOT supportive, this was in the news this week. See below.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Kenneth Pollack also states in his book that the GCC supports an invasion over the policy of containment, but does not believe the USA is going to invade and overthrow Saddam in Iraq ever. Once they become convinced that it is indeed going to happen, they will support it.

One has to remember that the greatest concern in this is not how large the coalition to disarm Saddam is, but Saddam himself.
1st, I believe that the passage I quoted from the book, clearly is supportive of the CIA Veteran's letter. That is why I posted it after you spoke of Pollack. I have never said you supported going it alone.

Pollack wrote the book which came out last year. Can we agree that there maybe more current information on the status of the GCC and UAE. From last weeks news:

Reaction From the Arab World

The Arab world is carved up into various camps too. Kuwait and Qatar are actively and visibly cooperating with the American build-up of troops and weaponry in the Gulf, and reading between the lines have indicated that they really had little choice. The UAE, which is vehemently against the war, has, nevertheless, sent 5,000 of its troops and a warship to Kuwait for that country's defense in accordance with GCC common defense treaties.

According to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's statement recently after a meeting with Presidents Bashar Al Assad of Syria and Muammar Gaddafhi of Libya, the Arabs are looking to Britain to change course and dilute the American led aggression on Iraq. He seemed to be throwing up his hands in despair and admitting that the Arabs are impotent to stop the invasion.

Jordan's King Abdullah was at first reluctant to join with the U.S. but appears to have succumbed to heavy American pressure to lend some support, a decision which is far from being popular among that country's five million ethnic Palestinians. Jordan presently enjoys cheap imports of Iraqi oil and trades with Baghdad to the tune of some two billion dollars annually. Kuwait has pledged to make up for the shortfall in petroleum.

Turkey's street is boiling too and feels that its pro-Islamic new government has let down the populace, some 90 per cent of which are against any military adventurism in Iraq. Again, the Pentagon has been twisting Turkey's arm with warnings and incentives.

The Turkish government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Its fragile economy relies on loans from the World Bank and the IMF, and the last thing the country wants, from a geopolitical viewpoint, is to see an autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, providing a rallying point for its own militant Kurds. On Monday a further complication appeared. The Turkish army refused to operate under U.S. command and control.

The Palestinians fear that the Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon is waiting ominously in the wings to pounce when the time is right. They are concerned that Sharon will use war with Iraq to further his ambitions of a Greater Israel either by further colonization of the West Bank or by attempting to ethnically cleanse the Occupied Territories.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 06:48 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:00 PM
The CIA's Veteren letter is in opposition to an invasion of Iraq. Kenneth Pollack is not in opposition to an invasion of Iraq. In fact, he clearly states that military invasion of Iraq is the only option that will achieve the disarmament of Iraq. If the UAE is not supportive publically, they sure as hell are privately. Remember what Kenneth Pollack said about the difference between what Arab Governments say publically and privately?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 06:52 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:00 PM
Dreadsox,

Realize if you believe in the option of containment over invasion, you would still have to be giving Billions of dollars to Turkey every year for an indefinite period in the attempt to stop smuggling that goes across the border everyday.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 06:56 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:00 PM
I never said Pollack is opposed to invasion. Pollack clearly outlines what we need to have a "successful invasion". A new UN resolution and a coalition were two of the things he argues for in his book. Neither of which I believe we have.

The fact that you are using the publically and privately argument, is just one reason why the general population in these countries. Yes I understand you may very well be correct in your assessment. I just do not find it to be a very positive way to build a coalition. Again, everything above, indicates, it is not a strong as it would seem.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:08 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Nothing new presented in this article. I've seen the same arguments before and disagree with them. This is not the official position of the CIA. This is a small group of veterns from the CIA. They do not speek for everyone who works at the CIA or has worked at the CIA. Another glaring fact the article does not comment on is what to do about the possibility that Hussien will have a Nuclear Weapon by next year. It primarily deals with an unproven theory of what will be the result of a US invasion of Iraq. I heard this same theory about a thousand times back in 1990 in regards to the first Gulf War only to see it be proven false. Terrorism went down in the five years after the Gulf War as opposed to the 5 years before it. It completely ignores the cost of not invading. Tell people in Iran or in Kurdistan that Saddam is unlikely to use Chemical or Biological weapons. Its a difficult task judging future behavior. Lets not forget that the majority of the CIA said Saddam would not invade Kuwait back in July of 1990. Only Kenneth Pollack and a couple of other good analyst predicted he would. Thats not to dismiss the considerable strength and knowledge of the CIA but simply emphasizes the fact that Saddam is a loose cannon whose actions in the future cannot be predicted with any accuracy. We've been wrong on multipe occasions in regards to Saddam's behavior in the past. Can we afford to be wrong with a Nuclear Armed Saddam? The article offers only the risk and cost of an invasion without offering an alternative solution to the problem or fully explaining the potential cost of not invading.
Wow. STING2 disagrees with CIA veterans.

I am far from being your opinion regarding Iraq, STING2, but I must say I respect that you´re not moving away from your opinion, regardless of who has which facts. I start to think that even if President Bush would change his mind, you wouldn´t.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 07:45 PM   #21
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:00 PM
I'm just reading an article on Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark about his possible election potential and his full take on the Iraq situation. I'm curious what thoughts others may have on his views. He is regularly on CNN and is a major critic of Bush's NSP. He believes the "administrations cowboy unilaterism" goes against everything the US is supposed to represent. He believes that had Bush approached this situation diplomatically we would have UN support. His biggest concern is losing our allies if we go without the UN and then attacking bigger concerns like N Korea and Iran alone.

Thoughts?
edited to say - He also believes without international support increased Terrorist activity and recruitment is a given.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:18 PM   #22
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 01:00 PM
maybe they should try hating people like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein a little more
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:22 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Good idea, Wanderer, maybe hate is the solution.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:43 PM   #24
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 01:00 PM
ok, maybe they should love them more
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:46 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Yeah, thats what Jesus said: love your enemies
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:50 PM   #26
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 01:00 PM
no, i meant the middle eastern folks should love their leaders more
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:53 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 08:00 PM
Should they? I think they already worship them to a certain extent. Just as the east coast folks love their leaders and the west coast folks love their leaders and east side L.A. love their thugs.

edit: But the CIA veterans don´t love the policies of the current administration, to get back to the topic.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 09:12 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:00 PM
Scarletwine, I've read a few articles which seem to be arguing that Wesley Clark might be an asset to the Democrats as a potential VP candidate. I don't know too much about his non-Iraq related views, but he's got a shitload of military accolades, is an eloquent speaker, and looks great on TV. He likely doesn't have that much experience in public service (sans the military, of course), so I'm holding out to see what his position is on a broader range of subjects.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 09:15 PM   #29
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:00 PM
I agree, they seem to be putting Kerry as a shoein, he has a lot of military background, including a Purple Heart adn a Bronze & Silver Star, and Clark as a VP.
I too would like to hear his other thoughts on issues. Your right he is very impressive as a speaker.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 10:44 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:00 PM
I just put two things into the One Term thread related to Clark and Kerry's positions on the War.

PEace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com