NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Sea Transportation Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Waiting For Barak

December 9, 2008: On December 8th, the EU (European Union) activated an anti-piracy patrol off Somalia. The force consists of six warships and three maritime patrol aircraft flying out of Djibouti. The first priority will be escorting relief ships (most of them carrying food for the third of the Somali population that is in danger of starving to death.) The EU warships will escort the relief aid ships into and out of Somali ports. Pirates are particularly keen to steal the aid ships, because the food, and other supplies, can be sold in Somali markets, to those who can afford to pay. Then the ships and crews can be held for ransom. Most cargoes captured cannot be sold locally.

There are about a dozen other warships patrolling for pirates, but few of them are from countries that actually have laws that allow the sailors to arrest pirates. All are allowed to fire back if fired on by pirates, and most can open fire on pirates they actually catch attacking a ship. Since World War II, most countries have repealed their anti-piracy laws (France did so just last year), as a relic of a more barbaric age. No one told the pirates that the age of piracy was no longer with us.

Most countries confronting the Somali pirates at sea agree that the solution to the problem is on land, the Somali mainland, not at sea. But no one wants to go ashore and get stuck in a perpetual peacekeeping operation among the violent, ungovernable and warlike Somalis. Then again, someone may consult a history book and be reminded that peace was maintained off the Somali coast for centuries by fortified towns, that kept the sea lanes free of pirates, and traded with the Somalis who farmed and tended herds in the interior. The trading ports were run by foreigners and Somali warlords, who knew that their prosperity depended on keeping Somali pirates from setting up shop along the coast.

What worries the pirates most is that newly elected American president Barak Obama, who is of Kenyan ancestry, may be prevailed upon, by African states and campaign promises, to launch a peacekeeping operation into Somalia. After all, America was persuaded by Europeans to undertake similar missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, to protect European Moslems. Why not do the same to protect Somali Moslems. Moreover, Obama has kin in Kenya, a country that has long suffered from Somali violence. The problem with Somalia is that it would not be peacekeeping, but peacemaking, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Somalia also contains a growing number of Islamic terrorists, who are already using suicide and roadside bombs against those who disagree with establishing an Islamic dictatorship there. Somalia could become Obama's Iraq.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article AFGHANISTAN: Go To Heroin Country And Die


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Chris    Obama's Iraq?   12/9/2008 10:40:49 AM
One of the primary differences between Somalia and Iraq, is that Iraq has a long tradition (well, comparitively) of a civilized, modern society, where Solmalia does not.  The Iraqi's actually like having a society and culture where there is law and order, and the population is pretty well educated.  However, there are still considerable vestiges of tribal rivalry, etc, that still plague even that more advanced country.
 
Unlike the current inhabitant of the oval office (and administration), there is no evidence that Mr. Obama  holds disdain for those that actually have expertise where he does not.  Hence, despite the premise that "Somalia could become Obama's Iraq", it is highly unlikely, and sounds more hopeful than anything else.  Obama was one of the comparitive few that was against going into Iraq saying in effect, that he isn't opposed to going to war.  Rather, he was opposed to going into a dumb war.
 
Somalia represents a problem (i.e. piracy) that is growing as a threat on a daily basis.  If this problem is going to be addressed by anyone it certainly will not be the US alone (or with a cooalition of the badgered, bribed, or coerced).  It would have to be a huge, multinational effort.  If anything has become obvious to all but the most jaded neo-con, there are serious limits to what American power is capable of.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       12/9/2008 11:48:07 AM
"What worries the pirates most is that newly elected American president Barak Obama, who is of Kenyan ancestry, may be prevailed upon, by African states and campaign promises, to launch a peacekeeping operation into Somalia. After all, America was persuaded by Europeans to undertake similar missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, to protect European Moslems. Why not do the same to protect Somali Moslems. Moreover, Obama has kin in Kenya, a country that has long suffered from Somali violence. ...Somalia could become Obama's Iraq."
 
What did I said last week. See my comments on "Somali Pirates Scare The Crap Out Of Arabs" and "I'll Be Back". Just another confirmation I am right about this.
 
Chris, so Obama isn't opposed to going to war, just opposed to going into a "dumb" war. I take that to mean that Obama will support a war if it is a Democratic war like Kosovo, but will not if it is a Republican war like the War on Terrorism. So, he is a two-faced hypocrite like the rest of his party. I am so glad you cleared that up.
 
Also, Chris some of us do not think that the War on Terrorism is a "dumb" war. Look, we just won in the war in the Iraqi theater.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       12/9/2008 3:15:09 PM

"What worries the pirates most is that newly elected American president Barak Obama, who is of Kenyan ancestry, may be prevailed upon, by African states and campaign promises, to launch a peacekeeping operation into Somalia. After all, America was persuaded by Europeans to undertake similar missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, to protect European Moslems. Why not do the same to protect Somali Moslems. Moreover, Obama has kin in Kenya, a country that has long suffered from Somali violence. ...Somalia could become Obama's Iraq."
 

What did I said last week. See my comments on "Somali Pirates Scare The Crap Out Of Arabs" and "I'll Be Back". Just another confirmation I am right about this.

 

Chris, so Obama isn't opposed to going to war, just opposed to going into a "dumb" war. I take that to mean that Obama will support a war if it is a Democratic war like Kosovo, but will not if it is a Republican war like the War on Terrorism. So, he is a two-faced hypocrite like the rest of his party. I am so glad you cleared that up.

 

Also, Chris some of us do not think that the War on Terrorism is a "dumb" war. Look, we just won in the war in the Iraqi theater.

 
Obama was correct (like it or not) that going into Iraq was dumb.  The US had no business going there, and it was GWB, who when prodded by the mean old press as to why he wanted so badly to go into Iraq blurted out that "he tried to kill my daddy".  So much for credibility...  Also note the Downing Street Memos - the intent of this administration was clear: they were going into Iraq no matter what Saddam did to comply.
 
Iraq, in the event you haven't figured it out yet, had NOTHING to do with the GWOT until GWB blundered and lied his way (935 of them, not to mention committing treason by outing an active CIA officer while doing so) into the war in Iraq.  The Iraq war, is hardly won - and it is FAR too early to call that a victory, as should be noted similarly to the ill-fated "Mission Accomplished" speech.  The violence is down - but there are clear reasons for that, the least of which is the surge.  The Iraqi's themselves decided that they hated Al Queda more than they hated us because AQI was overtly killing innocent civilians.  Next, while we were arming the locals, we at the same time started PAYING the Sunni's and Shia to stop killing each other (which we still do today).  When/if the money stops flowing, all bets are off as to what will happen next.  The evidence is clear, and well documented:  This administration left the mess behind for the next incumbant to clean up after the foreign policy disaster they didn't have the courage to fix themselves.
 
"Victory" as you call it in Iraq is phyrric at best and has done nothing to enhance our security.  According to the NIE, the war in Iraq has only made things far worse as Iraq provides a training ground for those that wish us ill.  Sure we've killed a lot of them - but we have in no way killed all of them - and those that survive are far more dangerous.
 
The GWOT as executed by this administration is a failure according to the NIE (and represents a foreign policy disaster never seen in our national history).  Elevating to a war makes the terrorists almost seem legit, as opposed to simply calling them what they are: criminals.
 




 
Quote    Reply

SAE       12/9/2008 4:11:14 PM
Sorry, but you are wrong.
 
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006
 
A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.
 
"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org).
 
"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.
 
Shaw has dealt with weapons-related issues and export controls as a U.S. government official for 30 years, and was serving as deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security when the events he described today occurred.
 
He called the evacuation of Saddam's WMD stockpiles "a well-orchestrated campaign using two neighboring client states with which the Russian leadership had a long time security relationship."
 
Shaw was initially tapped to make an inventory of Saddam's conventional weapons stockpiles, based on intelligence estimates of arms deals he had concluded with the former Soviet Union, China and France.
 
He estimated that Saddam had amassed 100 million tons of munitions - roughly 60 percent of the entire U.S. arsenal. "The origins of these weapons were Russian, Chinese and French in declining order of magnitude, with the Russians holding the lion's share and the Chinese just edging out the French for second place."
 
But as Shaw's office increasingly got involved in ongoing intelligence to identify Iraqi weapons programs before the war, he also got "a flow of information from British contacts on the ground at the Syrian border and from London" via non-U.S. government contacts.
 
"The intelligence included multiple sitings of truck convoys, convoys going north to the Syrian border and returning empty," he said.
 
Shaw worked closely with Julian Walker, a former British ambassador who had decades of experience in Iraq, and an unnamed Ukranian-American who was directly plugged in to the head of Ukraine's intelligence service.
 
The Ukrainians were eager to provide the United States with documents from their own archives on Soviet arms transfers to Iraq and on ongoing Russian assistance to Saddam, to thank America for its help in securing Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union, Shaw said.
 
In addition to the convoys heading to Syria, Shaw said his contacts "provided information about steel drums with painted warnings that had been moved to a cellar of a hospital in Beirut."
 
 
Smesko had been a military attaché in Washington in the early 1990s when Ukraine first became independent and Dick Cheney was secretary of defense. "Smesko had told Cheney that when Ukraine became free of Russia he wanted to show his friendship for the United States."
 
Helping out on Iraq provided him with that occasion.
 
"Smesko had gotten to know Gen. James Clapper, now director of the Geospacial Intelligence Agency, but then head of DIA," Shaw said.
 
But it was Shaw's own friendship to the head of Britain's MI6 that brought it all together during a two-day meeting in London that included Smeshko's people, the MI6 contingent, and Clapper, who had been deputized by George Tenet to help work the issue of what happened to Iraq's WMD stockpiles.
 
In the end, here is what Shaw learned:
 
In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
 
Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was "WMD free."
 
Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.
 
In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.
 
The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."
 
Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.
 
Shaw says he leaked the information about the two Russian generals and the clean-up operation to Gertz in October 2004 in an effort to "push back" against claims by Democrats that were orchestrated with CBS News to embarrass President Bush just one week before the November 2004 presidential election. The press sprang bogus claims that 377 tons of high explosives of use to Iraq's nuclear weapons program had "gone missing" after the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, while ignoring intelligence of the Russian-orchestrated evacuation of Iraqi WMDs.
 
The two Russian generals "had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years," Shaw revealed. U.S. intelligence knew "the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq's WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad."
The Baku conference, chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, "laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD."
 
Subsequent intelligence reports showed that Russian Spetsnaz operatives "were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb," Shaw said. "The Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that "only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad." That was the "only true statement" the Russians made, Shaw ironized.
 
The evacuation of Saddam's WMD to Syria and Lebanon "was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation," Shaw said. "It was the brainchild of General Yevgenuy Primakov."
 
The goal of the clean-up was "to erase all trace of Russian involvement" in Saddam's WMD programs, and "was a masterpiece of military camouflage and deception."
   
Shaw suggested that the answer of why the Bush administration had systematically "ignored Russia's involvement" in evacuating Saddam's WMD stockpiles "could be much bigger than anyone has thought," but declined to speculate what exactly was involved.
 
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney was less reticent. He thought the reason was Iran.
 
"With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs," he told NewsMax, "the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad."
 
McInerney agreed that there was "clear evidence" that Saddam had WMD. "Jack Shaw showed when it left Iraq, and how."
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       12/9/2008 4:19:52 PM
Also more evidence of why we went to war:
 
Andrew C. McCarthy - NRO Contibutor
 

Iraq Is the War on Terror

As the administration stays curiously mum, the evidence that it was right mounts.
The Bush administration evidently believes revisiting the case for toppling Saddam Hussein is a political loser. That this conclusion — which, of course, has played in the media like a tacit admission of guilt — is a terrible miscalculation becomes clearer with each passing day. As journalists, scholars, and analysts pore over more of the intelligence haul seized when U.S. forces toppled the Iraqi regime, the case for removing an America-hating terror-monger responsible for the brutal torture and murder of — literally — tens of thousands of people looks better and better. Still, the administration maddeningly refuses to go on offense in its defense.
 
This is at least the second occasion of this politically suicidal default. Top administration officials also gratuitously handed their critics a cudgel when, for reasons still explicable only by panic, they retracted — and, indeed, apologized for — an entirely accurate assertion in the president's 2003 State of the Union Address.
 
As Michael Ledeen recounted here on NRO a few days ago, President Bush's claim that the Iraqi regime had sought uranium in Africa was not only true and, as the British parliamentary investigation later concluded, "well-founded"; it was probably an understatement. Christopher Hitchens observes — based on the Duelfer Report — that Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Niger stretch back a quarter century. Unless you are inclined to believe Saddam was interested in procuring goats in 1999 when he dispatched a high-ranking emissary to that cash-starved but uranium-rich African nation — a nation with which he had previously done uranium business — there can be little doubt that nuclear-weapons development was the impetus.
 
Now, onto suicidal default, chapter two. The president's poll numbers are plummeting, largely due to the success the opposition has had in portraying Iraq as a misadventure — a diversion from the "real" war on terror, disintegrating into a chaotic mess of dubious nation-building. Why? Because the administration put most of its eggs in a shaky WMD basket; failed to make and sustain the case — i.e., the abundantly supportable case — that Saddam was both a committed terrorist and terrorist-abettor; and has since allowed Iraq to be etched as the test-case for its Middle East democracy project rather than as a logical phase of the war on terror. Even today, if you ask most Americans, "What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?" you'll get a blank stare — if not a curt "Nothing." Why should it be otherwise? That, effectively, has been the administration's own answer.
 
All the while, the evidence continues to mount that Saddam was a gathering threat against the United States — just as the president said he was. And the mounting has now been accelerated by the recent public availability of intelligence files — which the administration, for some reason, refused for years either to make available or to use in its own much needed defense.
 
Already, thanks to diligent work by the likes of Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard (author of The Connection and numerous articles about Iraq and al Qaeda), Tom Joscelyn (find his website here), Ed Morrissey (of Captain's Quarters), and Edward Jay Epstein (find his website here) we have seen, among other things:
 
direct contacts between high-ranking Iraqi regime officials and both Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri (bin Laden's top deputy);
an apparent payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars by Iraq to Zawahiri in 1998;
elaborate mentions of Iraq in bin Laden's infamous 1998 fatwa calling for the murder of all Americans, anywhere they could be found — the fatwa that presaged the bombing of the U.S. embassies five months later;
an Iraqi al Qaeda member held in Guantanamo Bay, charged with traveling to Pakistan with an Iraqi Intelligence official in August 1998 (the same month the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed) to study the possibility of bombing the American and British embassies there;
the attempt by Iraq to recruit jihadists in the late 1990s to bomb an American target, Radio Free Europe, in Prague;
the continued insistence to the 9/11 Commission by top Clinton officials (including President Clinton himself) that the retaliatory strike against the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan following the embassy bombings was justified by intelligence indicating that the target was home to a joint chemical weapons venture of Iraq, al Qaeda and Sudan;
the Clinton administration so convinced of an asylum arrangement between Iraq and al Qaeda that its top counter-terrorism official, Richard Clarke, opined to National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in 1999 that bin Laden would "boogie to Baghdad" if things became too hot for him in Afghanistan (it wouldn't, after all, have been a first: Saddam was already harboring one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers);
the still open allegation that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001, during the plotting stages of the 9/11 attacks;
the still unexplained presence of an Iraqi intelligence operative, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, at the initial January 2000 planning meetings in Kuala Lampur for the 9/11 attacks;
the recent revelation that Saddam's regime was, since at least 1994, conducting training for thousands of terrorists — training which, from 1998 forward, drew in thousands of jihadists from outside Iraq;
the recent revelation that Saddam's son Uday ordered preparations in 1999 for a wave of "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan]"; and
the exercises in January 2003 — on the eve of the U.S. invasion — known as "the "Heroes' attack," which was designed to prepare regional terror units to fight exactly the kind of insurgency war that has been waged against coalition forces for the last three years.
 
Now, the intelligence haul has produced another notable disclosure — which is startling only if you continue to gulp the popular Kool-aid that depicts Iraq as nothing more than a disastrous Bush blunder. About a week ago, Morrissey (crediting Iraq scholar Laurie Mylroie) published a striking memorandum, apparently authored by an Iraqi air-force general in March 2001. The memo, excerpted below (italics are mine), sought volunteers for suicide missions against American targets:
In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate
Top Secret
The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units
Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission
 
The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.
 
Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
Morrissey has now confirmed the translation through two experts, working independently. Assuming the document is authentic, it is a powerful confirmation of what was already palpable: The Iraqi dictator who attempted to murder a former U.S. president in 1993, who assiduously attacked the U.S. in his state-controlled media, who colluded with the terrorist network that attacked the U.S. throughout the 1990s, who defied sanctions and expelled weapons inspectors, who shot at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone throughout the 1990s, and who conducted frenetic terrorist training in preparation for a bloody, long-term insurgency against the U.S., was a threat to the United States.
 
The question lingers: Would an Iraqi air-force general in 2001 have had good reason to think he could get volunteers from within the Iraqi ranks for suicide missions?
 
There's good reason to think the answer to that question is "yes." As Tom Joscelyn points out to me, the new memorandum on which Morrissey has reported should be considered in conjunction with another piece of information that has attracted little media attention. This one comes from the December 2002 Report of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
 
One section of that Report (at pp. 209-13) studied what the U.S. intelligence community had, prior to 9/11, in the way of "Intelligence Information on Possible Terrorist Use of Airplanes as Weapons." Over a seven-year period, the joint inquiry found there were at least twelve such indications. Included among them was this one (p. 211):
In February 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Iraq had formed a suicide pilot unit that it planned to use against British and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. The CIA commented that this was highly unlikely and probably disinformation.
 
Nevertheless, the new memo, coupled with the finding by the joint inquiry, does underscore that: (a) our intelligence in Iraq (and elsewhere) was very poor; (b) that intelligence was not sufficient for making categorical conclusions about Iraq's intentions (including the absurd claim, made by many in intelligence circles, that Saddam would never collaborate with jihadists); (c) it is wishful thinking to conclude, as do many Bush critics, that President Clinton intimidated Saddam into foreswearing attacks against the U.S. by a 1993 air strike against an empty Iraqi-government building (in "retaliation" for the attempt to murder the first President Bush); and (d) it is critical for the historical record and the legacy of American military operations in Iraq to continue translating and studying the intelligence trove we have seized.
 
Most important for present purposes: The evidence is there, as it has always been, to prove that removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power was a significant advance in the war on terror. But all the evidence in the world proves nothing unless the administration gets out and makes the case. Publicly. Those who have given their lives to a noble cause deserve nothing less.
 
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Chris   12/9/2008 4:23:55 PM
Because treating the terrorists with criminals was on the verge of destroying them..well except for 9/11 and the 12,000 people they've killed since 1993 to OIF, and then the 20,000 or more they've killed in Iraq...nice try, though.
 
Take the talking points home dude...Hillary, Al Gore, Bill Clinton all said the same things, John Kerry, too...were they liars and traitors, or just Democrats?
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       12/9/2008 4:55:46 PM
"Most important for present purposes: The evidence is there, as it has always been, to prove that removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power was a significant advance in the war on terror. But all the evidence in the world proves nothing unless the administration gets out and makes the case. Publicly. Those who have given their lives to a noble cause deserve nothing less."
 
Saddam Hussein was a pain in the neck absolutely - but he had no love for Al Queda.  In fact,  Saddam was almost a polar opposite to Al Queda in that AQ want the kind of regious dictatorship that Saddam was completely opposed to.  Saddam, for all his faults, ran the one of the most (fi not the most) secular society of all the arab countries.
 
Hussein was in his box.  Sure he had WMD which we knew - after all, it was the US that sold him a lot of the ingredients he needed to make them (recall the picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand?).  But that was insufficient reason to go to war.  The reasons given by this administration were largely false, as is evidenced by the fact that they changed the story/reasons for going in so many times.  If the story/justification keeps changing, it is because the reasoning wasn't true to begin with.
 
Unfortunately, we are:  in Iraq now;  it is arguably the largest foreign policy disaster in the history of the US;  it is horrifyingly expensive considering the return we got;  to pay for it our financial future has been mortgaged to the communists;  our armies are exhausted and most equipment worn out and in need of overhaul/replacement;  our armed forces are at the lowest state of readiness since Viet Nam;  our international position has been severely weakened/moral standing is trashed;  and, we still haven't gotten the whole bill or fully understand how many other deals with the devil were made in the name of the United States.
 
Victories like this we cannot afford.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       12/9/2008 5:12:34 PM
"Most important for present purposes: The evidence is there, as it has always been, to prove that removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power was a significant advance in the war on terror. But all the evidence in the world proves nothing unless the administration gets out and makes the case. Publicly. Those who have given their lives to a noble cause deserve nothing less."
 
Saddam Hussein was a pain in the neck absolutely - but he had no love for Al Queda.  In fact,  Saddam was almost a polar opposite to Al Queda in that AQ want the kind of regious dictatorship that Saddam was completely opposed to.  Saddam, for all his faults, ran the one of the most (fi not the most) secular society of all the arab countries.
Except he allowed AlQueda to operate in Iraq...  Yeah the secular Socialist, Revanchists, who hate the US and the West would NEVER cooperate with the he Religious Revanchists who hate the West...just like the Communists and Nazi's would never cooperate or the Western Liberal Democracies cooperate with a tyrant like Stalin...Oh, HEY wait.....
Hussein was in his box.  Sure he had WMD which we knew - after all, it was the US that sold him a lot of the ingredients he needed to make them (recall the picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand?). 
 
So he had WMD's???? Ok, and no, he didn't buy the ingredients from US...he bought the Osirak from France...the Plutonium separation cells from Italy.  The chemical feed stocks from Holland and Germany, but you keep swinging there bucko.  He was in his "box" eh?  So that's why the US was looking to replace the current, untenable sanctions regime, right?  He was in his box...bribing French, Russian, and German politicians to end the sanctions on Iraq...offering lucrative oil concessions to Russian and Frnech firms, offering business to German firms, all contingent on the sanctions being lifted...in his box.  I sure hope you'r not a prison guard, because your definition of "in his box" is scary.
 
But that was insufficient reason to go to war.  The reasons given by this administration were largely false, as is evidenced by the fact that they changed the story/reasons for going in so many times.  If the story/justification keeps changing, it is because the reasoning wasn't true to begin with.
 
 By changing you mean the MULTIPLE reasons cited in the AUMF, right?  The AUMF that Congress, reading the same Intell, agreed to...the same information that both Clintons, Al Gore, and John Kerry read and agreed with...the same intell that led to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, signed by Bill Clinton, right???
 
 
Unfortunately, we are:  in Iraq now;  it is arguably the largest foreign policy disaster in the history of the US;  it is horrifyingly expensive considering the return we got;  to pay for it our financial future has been mortgaged to the communists;  our armies are exhausted and most equipment worn out and in need of overhaul/replacement;  our armed forces are at the lowest state of readiness since Viet Nam;  our international position has been severely weakened/moral standing is trashed;  and, we still haven't gotten the whole bill or fully understand how many other deals with the devil were made in the name of the United States.
 You missed 1972-1979 didn't you...the whole Evacuation from Saigon and the debacle in Desert One...I remember the 1970's this ain't them.....
 
Victories like this we cannot afford.
Not if you're a LIberal Democrat determined to make this "Bush's War" and therefore it MUST be a disaster, rather than a war that the United States is fighting.  Oh I see that the Media now declares that Iraq is a "Humanitarian Mission" not a war or a civil war at all...is this because it was NEVER a war, now that there is a Democrat in the White House (or near enough)  or that rather than a failure, now it's a success?
 
Get back to me on that would you?
 
Thank you for the usual talking points, though.
 
Quote    Reply

lurker       12/9/2008 11:48:42 PM

"Most important for present purposes: The evidence is there, as it has always been, to prove that removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power was a significant advance in the war on terror. But all the evidence in the world proves nothing unless the administration gets out and makes the case. Publicly. Those who have given their lives to a noble cause deserve nothing less."

 

Saddam Hussein was a pain in the neck absolutely - but he had no love for Al Queda.  In fact,  Saddam was almost a polar opposite to Al Queda in that AQ want the kind of regious dictatorship that Saddam was completely opposed to.  Saddam, for all his faults, ran the one of the most (fi not the most) secular society of all the arab countries.

 

Hussein was in his box.  Sure he had WMD which we knew - after all, it was the US that sold him a lot of the ingredients he needed to make them (recall the picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand?).  But that was insufficient reason to go to war.  The reasons given by this administration were largely false, as is evidenced by the fact that they changed the story/reasons for going in so many times.  If the story/justification keeps changing, it is because the reasoning wasn't true to begin with.

 

Unfortunately, we are:  in Iraq now;  it is arguably the largest foreign policy disaster in the history of the US;  it is horrifyingly expensive considering the return we got;  to pay for it our financial future has been mortgaged to the communists;  our armies are exhausted and most equipment worn out and in need of overhaul/replacement;  our armed forces are at the lowest state of readiness since Viet Nam;  our international position has been severely weakened/moral standing is trashed;  and, we still haven't gotten the whole bill or fully understand how many other deals with the devil were made in the name of the United States.

 

Victories like this we cannot afford.

 

 

 

 


Your last paragraph is utter bs. Our airforce and navy are hardly in use, and our forces are still as well maintained as they can be on the whole.
Also do not compare this with Vietnam, only people ignorant of the facts would compare it.
 
Quote    Reply

jak267       12/10/2008 12:40:03 AM
A "dumb" war? A war to end genocide? A war to stop a murderous dictator who was both planning on getting WMDs and purposely deceiving the UN about having them? A war to protect 1/2 the world's oil supply? A war to protect our strategic interests?

The only thing "dumb" about going to war in Iraq was not exterminating the real enemies of the US first - the sick "Anti-War" hypocrites and the News Media who are now responsible for the murders of 4,000 American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But OBie won't go there. Like all Liberals, he's a coward, a fool, and most of all a hypocrite.
 

 
Quote    Reply

SAE       12/10/2008 11:53:17 AM
Thanks, guys for the support. I was worry I be arguing this on my own.
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       12/10/2008 12:31:58 PM

A "dumb" war? A war to end genocide? A war to stop a murderous dictator who was both planning on getting WMDs and purposely deceiving the UN about having them? A war to protect 1/2 the world's oil supply? A war to protect our strategic interests?



The only thing "dumb" about going to war in Iraq was not exterminating the real enemies of the US first - the sick "Anti-War" hypocrites and the News Media who are now responsible for the murders of 4,000 American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.




But OBie won't go there. Like all Liberals, he's a coward, a fool, and most of all a hypocrite.


 




 
I see - so none of you accept the verdict of the NIE?  Or that the war was started on many false pretences?  If WJC had started this war you'd all be howling for impeachment (and I would be there with you).
 
The bleading heart liberal argument of stopping genocide is rubbish - you don't see anyone doing anything about it anywhere else - with the exception of Kosovo - which most of the so-called conservatives wanted nothing to do with anyway.
 
Planning on WMD's and lying to the UN about them?  I don't suppose that the fact that Saddam was living next door to Iran, with whom they had an 8 year war with makes any impression on you does it?  His army had been destroyed during Desert Storm, and the sanctions for the most part worked in making it incredibly difficult for him to get or otherwise manufacture weapons he supposedly had but we never found.  He had no choice but to lie about what he had as far as WMD was concerned because he didn't want the Iranians to think otherwise.
 
Cowardice is all about this current administration.  The chickenhawks are the ones that put the US into the doghouse with the rest of the planet and wasted our time, resources, and thousands of american lives. 
 
I really love the part about how much you think they should exterminate the anit-war hypocrites and news media who are "now responsible for the murders of 4000 American soldiers".  That is a remarkably un-American attitude and merely attempts to shift the blame where it does not belong.  George W Bush is ultimately responsible for those murders as you call them and there is nothing you can do to change that (he did sign the orders).
 
Pity. 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    It is Barack with a "C". He is President Elect, is it too much trouble to get that correct?   12/10/2008 1:18:39 PM

Photo

 
Quote    Reply

Chris       12/10/2008 3:08:11 PM

A "dumb" war? A war to end genocide? A war to stop a murderous dictator who was both planning on getting WMDs and purposely deceiving the UN about having them? A war to protect 1/2 the world's oil supply? A war to protect our strategic interests?



The only thing "dumb" about going to war in Iraq was not exterminating the real enemies of the US first - the sick "Anti-War" hypocrites and the News Media who are now responsible for the murders of 4,000 American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.




But OBie won't go there. Like all Liberals, he's a coward, a fool, and most of all a hypocrite.


 




 
I see - so none of you accept the verdict of the NIE?  Or that the war was started on many false pretences?  If WJC had started this war you'd all be howling for impeachment (and I would be there with you).
 
The bleading heart liberal argument of stopping genocide is rubbish - you don't see anyone doing anything about it anywhere else - with the exception of Kosovo - which most of the so-called conservatives wanted nothing to do with anyway.
 
Planning on WMD's and lying to the UN about them?  I don't suppose that the fact that Saddam was living next door to Iran, with whom they had an 8 year war with makes any impression on you does it?  His army had been destroyed during Desert Storm, and the sanctions for the most part worked in making it incredibly difficult for him to get or otherwise manufacture weapons he supposedly had but we never found.  He had no choice but to lie about what he had as far as WMD was concerned because he didn't want the Iranians to think otherwise.
 
Cowardice is all about this current administration.  The chickenhawks are the ones that put the US into the doghouse with the rest of the planet and wasted our time, resources, and thousands of american lives. 
 
I really love the part about how much you think they should exterminate the anit-war hypocrites and news media who are "now responsible for the murders of 4000 American soldiers".  That is a remarkably un-American attitude and merely attempts to shift the blame where it does not belong.  George W Bush is ultimately responsible for those murders as you call them and there is nothing you can do to change that (he did sign the orders).
 
Pity. 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       12/10/2008 5:02:28 PM

A "dumb" war? A war to end genocide? A war to stop a murderous dictator who was both planning on getting WMDs and purposely deceiving the UN about having them? A war to protect 1/2 the world's oil supply? A war to protect our strategic interests?



The only thing "dumb" about going to war in Iraq was not exterminating the real enemies of the US first - the sick "Anti-War" hypocrites and the News Media who are now responsible for the murders of 4,000 American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.




But OBie won't go there. Like all Liberals, he's a coward, a fool, and most of all a hypocrite.


 




 
I see - so none of you accept the verdict of the NIE?  Or that the war was started on many false pretences?  If WJC had started this war you'd all be howling for impeachment (and I would be there with you).
 
The bleading heart liberal argument of stopping genocide is rubbish - you don't see anyone doing anything about it anywhere else - with the exception of Kosovo - which most of the so-called conservatives wanted nothing to do with anyway.
 
Planning on WMD's and lying to the UN about them?  I don't suppose that the fact that Saddam was living next door to Iran, with whom they had an 8 year war with makes any impression on you does it?  His army had been destroyed during Desert Storm, and the sanctions for the most part worked in making it incredibly difficult for him to get or otherwise manufacture weapons he supposedly had but we never found.  He had no choice but to lie about what he had as far as WMD was concerned because he didn't want the Iranians to think otherwise.
 
Cowardice is all about this current administration.  The chickenhawks are the ones that put the US into the doghouse with the rest of the planet and wasted our time, resources, and thousands of american lives. 
 
I really love the part about how much you think they should exterminate the anit-war hypocrites and news media who are "now responsible for the murders of 4000 American soldiers".  That is a remarkably un-American attitude and merely attempts to shift the blame where it does not belong.  George W Bush is ultimately responsible for those murders as you call them and there is nothing you can do to change that (he did sign the orders).
 
Pity. 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy