Top general warns against Iraq timetable - 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 11-17-2006, 07:49 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Yeah - it was so nice and peaceful before...
If its not cut and run, its paste the dismay over the situation as not wanting to do anything.

For goodness sake, the democrats voted for war with the republicans.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-17-2006, 09:14 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


If its not cut and run, its paste the dismay over the situation as not wanting to do anything.

For goodness sake, the democrats voted for war with the republicans.
I was being sarcastic. The Middle East hasn't been peaceful since...well...has it ever been peaceful?
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 05:14 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I love how every fucking thread becomes the democrats want to cut and run.

Give me a break.

It does not excuse the mess we have created. It does not excuse the mess we will be leaving behind.

Amazing isn't it....that it appears the Baker team feels we MUST bring in the neighbors. Something that should have been done before the war started.
This is actually the first time the democrats and cut and run have been mentioned in this thread.

I don't see anyone in this thread attempting to excuse mistakes in Iraq. There will not be a mess left behind provided the coalition does not withdraw prematurely and stays long enough to complete the training of the Iraqi military and security services.

I don't think Baker is talking about the deployment of Iranian, Syrian or other neighboring countries troops on the ground in Iraq. In other ways, the neighbors are already there and may be unable to influence the situation anymore than they have already.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 05:50 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




is it better now?

there was a reason Bush 1 didn't march into Baghdad in 1991.

there were different ways of dealing with the situation and it appears as if we've embraced the worst possible option both for Iraq, and for America (where now military action is a first resort, not a last resort).

i was against this war not necessarily because i thought the overthrow of Hussein was a bad idea, but i was against it because, 1) it was an Arab Yugoslavia, and 2) the current administration was in no way mature enough to do what needed to be done -- i called them out as blinkered ideologues and credulous fools way before 9-11, and i stand fully vindicated.
Bush 1 did not march to Baghdad in 1991 because it was felt that security in the region could be restored without overthrowing Saddam, given the huge military losses he would suffer in the war, and provided that Saddam agreed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, provide funds for rebuilding Kuwait, and be contained by one of the largest sanctions and weapons embargo regimes the world had ever seen. In addition, no one in the Bush 1 administration really thought Saddam would still be in power by 1996.

Saddam cooperated in the beginning, but had he not signed the ceacefire in March 1991 and continued to fight, US forces were only 100 miles from Baghdad with NO Iraqi forces between them and the capital which could have been taken in a short amount of time if needed in order to end the fighting. Saddam's signing of the ceacefire was the start of his classic cheat and retreat strategy which would in a few years make it increasingly difficult to accomplish anything in regards to disarmament.

Invading Iraq was indeed the worst option, but it was the only option left given that everything else had failed to bring Saddam into compliance and the fact that the containment regime was rapidly crumbling. Everything short of a full scale military invasion had been tried and failed. Inspections that were only supposed to take 2 to 3 years had still failed to insure Saddam was verifiably disarmed after 12 years. In the end, the inspections and disarmament process can only work with the full cooperation of whom ever is being inspected and disarmed.

Whether it be Afghanistan's multi-ethnic make up or Iraq's, its not in itself an excuse not to intervene when the country or the worlds needs require intervention.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 09:24 AM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:57 PM
[q](CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair provoked a storm Saturday after apparently admitting that the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain was "a disaster."

Blair gave the surprise assessment of his decision to go to war in an interview with David Frost on Al-Jazeera's new English-language channel.

British opposition MPs seized on the comment as evidence that Blair has finally accepted that his strategy in the Middle Eastern state had failed.

British newspapers carried the story on their front pages Saturday

"Iraq invasion a disaster, Blair admits on Arab TV," was the headline in the Daily Telegraph.

"PM Tony Blair last night sensationally admitted the Iraq War fallout has become 'disastrous,' reported Britain's biggest selling daily, The Sun.

Blair's remarks came after former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said he feared his country was on the verge of disintegration -- a situation he said he never anticipated.

"It's really quite alarming and dangerous, where Iraq is now. It's quite frightening," he told CNN.

"Iraq is slipping continuously into a chaotic level of violence. "To be honest, this is not something that I could have imagined when we fought Saddam's regime."

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 09:31 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Some just cant understand nuance
Quote:
During the interview, Sir David suggested that the West’s intervention in Iraq had “so far been pretty much of a disaster”.

Blair replied: “It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It’s not difficult because of some accident in planning, it’s difficult because there’s a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/iraq-invasion-a-disaster-blair/2006/11/18/1163266825991.html
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 09:53 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Bush 1 did not march to Baghdad in 1991 because it was felt that security in the region could be restored without overthrowing Saddam, given the huge military losses he would suffer in the war, and provided that Saddam agreed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, provide funds for rebuilding Kuwait, and be contained by one of the largest sanctions and weapons embargo regimes the world had ever seen. In addition, no one in the Bush 1 administration really thought Saddam would still be in power by 1996.
Not exactly true.

On February 28, 1999, the former president was the honored guest at a gathering of some 200 Gulf War veterans at the Fort Meyer Army base, just across the Potomac River from Washington.

It had burned him up when people said they hadn't finished the job, he said. "Had we gone into Baghdad-We could have done it. You guys could have done it. You caould have been in there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergent, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerrilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? WHOSE LIFE WOULD BE ON MY HANDS AS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF BECAUSE I, UNILATERALLY, WENT BEYOND INTERNATIONAL LAW, WENT BEYOND THE STATED MISSION AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO SHOW OUR MACHO? WE'RE GOING INTO BAGHDAD. WE'RE GOING TO BE AN OCCUPYING POWER-AMERICA IN AN ARAB LAND-WITH NO ALLIES AT OUR SIDE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISASTEROUS."


Beyond the scope of international law? Hmmmmmmmmmm

Frontline Colin Powell:

[Q]Q: To draw back to the idea of the quick, decisive war, that at the end of it, America scurries back into itself and leaves a mess....

Powell: We didn't create the mess that exists within Iraq. We didn't create the difficulty between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites and the Kurds. We didn't draw the map that created Iraq in 1920, if I'm not mistaken I think it was done by British diplomats.

What we came to do, and what the UN authorized us to do, and what the American Congress authorized us to do, was to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, restore the legitimate government of Kuwait, bring about a new relationship in the region and please try to do it with minimum loss of life. All of that was accomplished.
[/Q]

Frontline James baker:

[Q]Q: What were the key factors that led you all to think 'Hey, it's time to finish this.'

Baker: The key factors were that we had ejected Iraq from Kuwait which is what was required by the uh UN Security Council resolution. That if we kept going a whole lot longer we would be acting beyond the resolution. The war aims had been achieved. The political aims had been achieved. A lot of people trying to flee were being killed literally thousands and the military advised the President that it was time to wrap it up in terms of our war aims and I think the President's decision was absolutely the right one. All the second guessing about going to Baghdad and all of that, people that make those kinds of suggestions are not taking into consideration a whole host of factors. How many more American lives would have been lost? How far beyond our authority from the UN would we have been acting if we had prolonged the war further, if we had occupied Southern Iraq, if we had gone to Baghdad? How long would we have to fight a guerrilla war in Iraq if we'd occupied any of the territory? A whole host of factors. People also forget that it was never a war aim or a political aim of the United States to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime.

Was it something we would like to see happen? Was it something that most of us felt probably would happen in the aftermath of such a significant defeat? Yes. But it was never something that was authorised that we'd do by the United Nations Security Council. We would have lost our coalition. The Arab elements I think would have left for sure. There would be no peace process in the Middle East today. So people don't focus on those things.

[/Q]

It would have been illegal in the eyes of INTERNATIONAL LAW.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 12:56 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Not exactly true.

On February 28, 1999, the former president was the honored guest at a gathering of some 200 Gulf War veterans at the Fort Meyer Army base, just across the Potomac River from Washington.

It had burned him up when people said they hadn't finished the job, he said. "Had we gone into Baghdad-We could have done it. You guys could have done it. You caould have been in there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergent, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerrilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? WHOSE LIFE WOULD BE ON MY HANDS AS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF BECAUSE I, UNILATERALLY, WENT BEYOND INTERNATIONAL LAW, WENT BEYOND THE STATED MISSION AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO SHOW OUR MACHO? WE'RE GOING INTO BAGHDAD. WE'RE GOING TO BE AN OCCUPYING POWER-AMERICA IN AN ARAB LAND-WITH NO ALLIES AT OUR SIDE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISASTEROUS."


Beyond the scope of international law? Hmmmmmmmmmm

Frontline Colin Powell:

[Q]Q: To draw back to the idea of the quick, decisive war, that at the end of it, America scurries back into itself and leaves a mess....

Powell: We didn't create the mess that exists within Iraq. We didn't create the difficulty between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites and the Kurds. We didn't draw the map that created Iraq in 1920, if I'm not mistaken I think it was done by British diplomats.

What we came to do, and what the UN authorized us to do, and what the American Congress authorized us to do, was to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, restore the legitimate government of Kuwait, bring about a new relationship in the region and please try to do it with minimum loss of life. All of that was accomplished.
[/Q]

Frontline James baker:

[Q]Q: What were the key factors that led you all to think 'Hey, it's time to finish this.'

Baker: The key factors were that we had ejected Iraq from Kuwait which is what was required by the uh UN Security Council resolution. That if we kept going a whole lot longer we would be acting beyond the resolution. The war aims had been achieved. The political aims had been achieved. A lot of people trying to flee were being killed literally thousands and the military advised the President that it was time to wrap it up in terms of our war aims and I think the President's decision was absolutely the right one. All the second guessing about going to Baghdad and all of that, people that make those kinds of suggestions are not taking into consideration a whole host of factors. How many more American lives would have been lost? How far beyond our authority from the UN would we have been acting if we had prolonged the war further, if we had occupied Southern Iraq, if we had gone to Baghdad? How long would we have to fight a guerrilla war in Iraq if we'd occupied any of the territory? A whole host of factors. People also forget that it was never a war aim or a political aim of the United States to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime.

Was it something we would like to see happen? Was it something that most of us felt probably would happen in the aftermath of such a significant defeat? Yes. But it was never something that was authorised that we'd do by the United Nations Security Council. We would have lost our coalition. The Arab elements I think would have left for sure. There would be no peace process in the Middle East today. So people don't focus on those things.

[/Q]

It would have been illegal in the eyes of INTERNATIONAL LAW.
That would be true ONLY if the United States continued into Iraq despite Saddam's willingness to comply with UN resolutions and the ceacefire in the February/March 1991 time frame. If Saddam did not comply and had continued to fight the war, the coalition would have continued into Iraq to include removing Saddam if need be. There is nothing in the resolution 678 which says the coalition would be barred from taking such action if it became necessary to ENFORCE the resolution. The "Use Of All Necessary Means" was authorized to bring about enforcement of resolution 678.

Of course, there was a long period of time during the 1990s when people, often Democrats unusually, spent time second guessing and criticizing Bush's reasons for stopping instead of simply overthrowing Saddam, regardless of whether Saddam was suddenly willing to comply with the demands of the international community.

The above statements by Bush administration officials are given in the context that the initial war aims had been achieved and Saddam was willing to stop fighting and agree to the demands of the international community and the signing of the ceacefire agreement. They do not consider what would have happened if Saddam had continue to fight on, including launching missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, and simply not complying with any demands. Under such conditions, UN Security Council Resolution 678 could not be fully enforced, and the advance into Iraq would have to continue until Saddam and his military stopped fighting, or were captured or killed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 01:27 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:57 PM




Ummmm....how can it only be true when they are speaking after the war???

It is true!!!!

Or maybe I live in an alternate reality.....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 02:35 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox




Ummmm....how can it only be true when they are speaking after the war???

It is true!!!!

Or maybe I live in an alternate reality.....

The statements made after the war which you quoted are in the context of if the United States had continued into Iraq despite Saddam's compliance with and the achievement of the resolutions objectives. Under those circumstances, further military action would have been going beyond what the resolution had called for. But, if Saddam had continued to fight in March of 1991 and did not agree to any of the demands made against him, US and coalition forces would have had no choice but to continue into Iraq because resolution 678 would not have been fully enforced under such conditions. There was never any explicit limit to military action necessary for the enforcement of resolution 678. The "use of all necessary means" was authorized to enforce resolution 678 as well as all subsequent UN resolutions in regards to the issue.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 02:40 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:57 PM
Can somebody translate for me how this is relevant to the point?

I almost think you no longer read what people type, and are on auto pilot.

I have quoted reasons why they did not continue. Loss of American lives was there, but there were other reasons. Including reality....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 02:48 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Can somebody translate for me how this is relevant to the point?

I almost think you no longer read what people type, and are on auto pilot.
What exactly do you not understand? Your listing statements made by Bush 1 and others after the war that going after Saddam would have been going beyond what the resolution called for and that would be true given Saddam's compliance and signing of the ceacefire agreement. But if Saddam had not complied at all and continued the fight at that point, US and coalition troops would have had no choice but to continue into Iraq in order to end the fighting, removing Saddam if necessary, in order to fully enforce the resolutions. The qoutes you site though do not handle the issue of what would have happened if Saddam had continued to fight in March 1991. They only refer to what did happen and in that sense they are correct because Saddam at the time complied and agreed to the demands he was presented with.

While were at it, do you plan to actually make a comment about the topic of the thread?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 02:55 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
While were at it, do you plan to actually make a comment about the topic of the thread?
Get your head out of your fourth point of contact.

While you are so fucking willing to keep American soldiers there in Iraq sacraficing their lives, why don't you enlist instead of being such the brave armchair quarterback.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 02:56 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


What exactly do you not understand?
I understand my quotes...

Do you understand them armchair general?

What I do not understand is your continuous babble over the last few years, while not stepping up to the plate yourself. Go rebuild Iraq.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-18-2006, 02:56 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I have quoted reasons why they did not continue. Loss of American lives was there, but there were other reasons. Including reality....
Um, its really the fact that in March 1991, they succeeded in achieving the stated objectives, at that time, and Saddam agreed to the demands he was presented with. No one believed Saddam would still be around in 5 years, or that the inspections process would prove to be so difficult, and the containment regime would start to crumble. What the administration believed would happen later back in March 1991 and the "reality" of what did happen in the years since then are two very different things.

Regardless, it never stopped the US military and State Department from preparing extensively for the day they might be called on to invade and occupy the country as Marine Corp General Anthony Zinni has said.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 12:57 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