Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

So, Vaughn:

War in Iraq has began. Who in America supports this war? What is the Nationalist...?

Here in Russia main part of population is against this war, only some mad liberals support Bush's politic. Even mainstream newspapers had malevolent reaction on American casualties; the titles of articles in newspapers were like "Now USA will reconize what is Chechnenian war looks like". Western media was so ironical speaking about problems of the Russian army in Chechnya. But that war was on Russian territory, so we couldn't use bombs and rockets there, in 1995 Groznyy was one of the best city-fortress after WW2, Russian army had to fight against Chechenians (brilliant guerilla troops, in fact Chechenian and Karabah army are only two effective armies in Caucaus region) in mountains covered by forests - the best landscape for guerilla warfare. So, what we got now in Iraq? Americans in fact had no true experience of cityfight and guerilla war, American army was not ready for close combat even with army that is much weaker. The other problem is that Americans depend too much on technology.

So, Pat (Buchanan) was truly right in his article. Those imperialistic tendencies will kill America as they killed USSR.

Bright lad, as well as my Russian friend...

Vaughn

... in response to A Russian patriot  (my friend) speaks..., posted by BURKE89 on Mar 30, 2003

I gotta agree with the other posts. All I see is an angry guy with very dark hopes and predictions. Maybe he is a bright lad, but I really do not see proof for it in this post. Sorry.

Now lets look at some of his statements.

Your friend said, "Who in America supports this war?"

Last time I checked, national opinion polls showed 78% of Americans support the war. Of course there is a margin of error of plus or minus 4%.

Your friend said, "Western media was so ironical speaking about problems of the Russian army in Chechnya. But that war was on Russian territory, so we couldn't use bombs and rockets there, in 1995 Groznyy was one of the best city-fortress after WW2, Russian army had to fight against Chechenians (brilliant guerilla troops, in fact Chechenian and Karabah army are only two effective armies in Caucaus region) in mountains covered by forests - the best landscape for guerilla warfare. "

Well that was a mouthful. As for the "restraint" shown by the Russian Army, lets just go on the internet and look up pictures of Grozny after the Russian army seized it. Call me crazy, but all of that rubble was not strictly the result of messy Chechens. The Russian army used heavy artillery bombardment for an extended period of time on "Russian territory" and "Russian citizens". As for the Western media being so "ironical", it had to do with things like Russian draft dodgers, the poor state of training of Russian recruits, lack of consistent payment of wages to troops, brutal treatment of the civilian population, etc. We faulted the Russian government for its brutal war that severely punished the Chechen civilians and we faulted the Russian government of its poor care of its own soldiers.

No one is questioning the intelligence or bravery of individual Russian soldiers. I have nothing but respect for the Russian fighting man. Its only that the military and civilian leadership in Russia failed these brave men terribly. These guys were not given a real chance to win. They were just thrown in a meat grinder with little training or leadership. Yes the Chechens are good fighters and no one is disputing that fact. We only dispute the contention that the Russian army, in its current form, is comparable to the American army. That is where I think your friend's comparion of Iraq the Chechnya has trouble holding up. Until the Russian leadership addresses problems with soldiers pay, logistics, training and morale, there really is no comparison between our two armed forces. Sorry.

Your friend said, "Americans in fact had no true experience of cityfight and guerilla war, American army was not ready for close combat even with army that is much weaker."

What is his basis for making such absolute statements about the military readiness of the American military. Is he armed with anything other than a few Russian newspaper articles? What can your friend tell us about American training, equipment or tactics with regards to American Army capabilities with respect to cityfighting? What does he see as our specific weaknesses? Does he have any suggestions on how these weaknesses can be improved? Although everyone is entitled to an opinion, your friend's opinion seems to be grounded more in a negative bias towards the USA than in facts. Just my opinion. : )

As for American technology, I think any soldier would love to benefit from the support our guys receive. Once again, just my opinion.

I am not saying all these things to tweak you, I am just trying to point out how your friend's argument seems more emotional than factual. As for his feelings, I think they are pretty clear.

... in response to Re: A Russian patriot  (my friend) speak..., posted by DanM on Mar 31, 2003

for your cogent response, DanM.

I agree with many things you've said; but, I've but, 3-hours of sleep -prior to border-checks (Mexico)- so, manana... for a counter-arguement.

Disgruntled, exhausted, tired... tax-paying - AMERICAN.

... in response to Thank you..., posted by BURKE89 on Apr 4, 2003

and get some sleep when you can. : )

... in response to Re: A Russian patriot  (my friend) speak..., posted by DanM on Mar 31, 2003

is mis-directed - DanM.

He's a Russian, who doesn't speak our tounge as well as you (he didn't insult & gives a realistic evaluation of our abilities. Oil good ... Empire bad).

I can't speak for a young Russian doctor; however, he didn't insult our nation nor its soldiers. Yes, because he respects America's early institutions, very, very much. Yes -again-, the Russian soldier and "Vet" has been treated horribly; but, this isn't a new concept - nor mentioned in his "simple paragraph."

Yet, you played upon that theme to no end.

Kinda odd...

Why?

... in response to Your anger..., posted by BURKE89 on Apr 1, 2003

Although many things over the past 2 months have angered me, I promise you that your friend's statements did not anger me. I answered specific points of his post with my own opinions. After reading my post two more times, I do not see the anger that you mentioned. I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in some of the statements and commented on an apparent emotional bias that was perceived by many. Check the other posts in the thread if you do not believe me.

As for playing upon some theme to no end, I am at a loss. I understand you are trying to refute my response to the original post and I understand that talking about my "anger" is an easy and convenient way to do so. I just don't think you are on track. Your accusation of anger seems more like an emotional response akin to name calling than a reasonable discussion of points and counter points.

I completely agree he did not give a realistic evaluation of our abilities, but he sure did speak with a lot of certainty and confidence when he talked about the problems our military would face and the deficiencies of our armed forces. If, as you say, he was misunderstood, then you should have clarified the post for us instead of just telling us how much you agreed with him. Kinda odd to me that you didn’t do that. : )

Yes I know the concept of mistreated Russian soldiers is not a new one. Been around for several hundred years that I know of. Maybe more. It was relevant to my point, however, of saying that a direct comparison between the abilities of the American and Russian armies is not accurate. That is why I introduced the topic.

Please read my post again, because I really would like to understand the basis of your view of my "angry" post described in the title of your response to my post.

... in response to A Russian patriot  (my friend) speaks..., posted by BURKE89 on Mar 30, 2003

It sounds like your friend wishes our destruction and failure to free the Iraqis from the brutal dictatorship. He would take delight in another Vietnam for us. He's certainly entitled to his dark opinion. With friends like that, who needs enemies or the U.N.?

We are in Iraq to effect a regime change. We want a regime that will not sponsor terrorism and create weapons of mass destruction. Look for conspiracies, if you must, but that's the bottom line. The Iraqis will have a shot to be like us-- have democracy. They will have one good shot at joining the modern western civilization of 2003. If I were a typical Iraqi (but not a Baath party butcher), I would thank god for this invasion. But if they aren't ready for democracy, they and the world must realize that a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity came their way on a silver platter marked with their initials and they blew it. If they insist on continuing to be barbarians, fine, very lovely in a politically correct world in which no one is wrong and no one is right and the world is all grey; however, the barbarians won't be allowed to exist anymore armed with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. If it is imperialistic to insist that countries not sponsor terrorism, then we need a lot more imperialism in the world. Tons more. We need imperialism in every nook and cranny of this world.

After we deal with Iraq (give us at least a couple months to bring the Baath Party to its knees), Russia can stand by on the sidelines and watch us effect regime changes in Iran, North Korea, and other rogue nations. They can root for the terrorists while we clean house. Our allies will reap the rewards-- that means Russia can have a few gristly scraps from the table, which is what they've earned.

The Russian military by all accounts is a complete joke. They equipped Iraq-- to Iraq's detriment. Russian-made passe crap is getting blown away daily by the U.S. forces. The Russians after a decade, could never operationally figure out how to fight the stone age Afghanis. We cleaned their clocks in a few weeks and overthrew the government. They had better make peace with the folks in Grozny, because that's what you have to do when your military is a joke.

... in response to Re: An American patriot responds..., posted by Scaught on Mar 30, 2003

Scaught,

My mate, you might be right, is concerned with his own nation - as I with mine - U.S.A.

I take Washington's axioms to heart - very deeply.

Yet, I don't wish to slam our values down their Arab gullets - do you?

Vaughn

... in response to Re: Re: An American patriot responds..., posted by BURKE89 on Mar 30, 2003

What are Arab values? How are we displacing these values by removing a brutal dictator whose hero was Joseph Stalin?

I don't think Arab values support throwing civillians into a woodchipper in an effort to terrorize its own population. I don't think Arab values support droping battery acid from helecopters onto protesters. I don't think Arab values support the use of chemical and biological weapons upon the citizens of ones own country. I don't think Arab values are personified by such a brutal dictator or his thugs. I give the Arabs a lot more credit than that. The Arab culture contains all the good and bad possibilities within the spectrum of human behavior.

By opposing a sadistic dictator, we are not opposing the Arab culture. We are only protecting ourselves and trying to help give these people a voice in their own destiny. We are saying that a representative government can give the Arab culture more ways to express the positive sides of itself. No one is saying they have to eat McDonalds, watch MTV or even be our friend. We just want these people to have a voice in their own government, because we believe this will be a more humane and constructive government.

Please elaborate on how our removal of Sadam equates to our slamming our values down their gullet. Maybe I am missing something here. At the very least, I would appreciate your clarification.

Thanks.

... in response to Re: Re: An American patriot responds..., posted by BURKE89 on Mar 30, 2003

I am totally with you-- I know that "slamming our values down their gullets" won't work. They will have an opportunity for democracy, but I certainly do expect them to completely blow it. But as long as the new regimes don't produce weapons of mass destruction, they'll have nothing to worry about from us, and we'll leave them alone. They can live in the middle ages for as long as they wish, as long as their weapons stay from the time of the middle ages, as well.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: An American patriot responds..., posted by Scaught on Mar 31, 2003

is their own choice - not ours, in the slighest.

So, Scaught, I agree with you... almost.

I fear a scenario similar to what the gents in Serbia, in 1914, created. Basic logic doesn't dictate: a secular and brutal leader in charge of three distinct, and proud nationalities to "play nice."

I smell, well, a couple of hundred thousand refugees from our conquest (neat). In reality: I think a sound portion of Iraqui immigration would be sound, yet...

PS. Do read Eric S. Margolis ( He's a nice Jewish fellow, unlike myself). However, I can't find a more talented lad (writer) anywhere, regarding the entire region (He has been associated with the 'sane' Arab anti-coms & balanced folks... for years).

Goggle the lad...

Regards, Vaughnn

... in response to Re: Re: Re: An American patriot responds..., posted by Scaught on Mar 31, 2003

[This message has been edited by BURKE89]

Improper tenor...

... in response to A Russian patriot  (my friend) speaks..., posted by BURKE89 on Mar 30, 2003

Vaughn,
got to agree with you, somewhat,
while I was thinking to myself that, if I did remember what I was thought in my sociology class, a long time
ago, that social change can't be planned in backroom or boiler room, organize changes, fabricated changes...etc..
are what they are, organize and fabricated.
Real social change, you never know when they will start and when they will finish.
The best example I can give here, to my friend from the south of the 45th.
One night, an age lady, who was very tired having work all day, decided to sit in a seat of bus, where she was
not supposed to.
And all hell broke loose, nothing could stop what she had started.
She had not plan this and was the last person, anyone would have pick to turn  a country around.
This,  after all the supposed to be heavyweight and mighty had broken their fingernails and never made a dent
in the shield of segregation.

This why, I am scare like hell, when someone thinks that he can bring democracy, to a country.
the same way, one  brings flowers to the lady of the house when invited for dinner.

Perhaps, your man Pat, would do a good job, who knows.
May be, he'll get his chance again.  He must have learn something from the last time.

This is after Hilary leaves the White House, in 2012.

... in response to Re: A Russian patriot  (my friend) speak..., posted by micha1 on Mar 30, 2003

Patrick's monetary scenario: is 00000000000000.01 against anyone. It's principle: right or wrong.

It's a Nader concept ( I hate that SOB, but I respect his courage to fight the "machine," -Patrick cost Bush... four states, too). Of course, nobody would tell you that, either. However, it happened!

Now, this 'Hilary' stuff in 3042......  Well, they have  4,000 times more $$$$$$$$$ than us 'evil' lads. At least, less than the 25,000 times of Bush - more than PAT - last time around!

Vaughn

PS. We have no $. So, help us!!!

... in response to A Russian patriot  (my friend) speaks..., posted by BURKE89 on Mar 30, 2003

They were at war with Afghanistan for who knows how long & couldn't finish them off. We did it in what a couple of weeks or months? Saddam I don't think will be around in 2 weeks. He could possibly already be dead or close to it. Even if he is healthy as an ox he WILL be out VERY soon. Man we haven't even been at war 2 WEEKS!!! Amazing how quickly people raise their standards when it comes to us. I think many foreigners are HOPING we'll fail. Aint' gonna happen. You can bank on that.

... in response to America isn't Russia...., posted by Frank O on Mar 30, 2003

they controlled the major cities, too ('79-'80).

No one likes this prick (S.H.),nor his regime. Yet, do you wish to control -  the equivilent of eight states - to make an entire region think like us, Frank?

I don't like propaganda from any side.

We're, at least, a free AMERICAN people, huh ... not Roman, yet?

Perhaps, you've missed my point.

Our boys are there, so we fight to win. However, history tells me... we will not leave.

Vaughn

... in response to America isn't Russia...., posted by Frank O on Mar 30, 2003

I still don't know what is the real objective in the Iraq war or even Afghanistan. Yes, the US has the best military in the world. Contrary to popular belief you won the Vietnam war, militarily. But then you gave up and lost it politically. Afghanistan isn't over yet. And what will happen in Iraq? Do the American people have the will to fight a long bloody colonial style occupation of these countries? Or will you just go in, kill a few thousand, and then leave without having changed the underlying situation. Taking out Saddam or Osama would be a good thing. Unfortunately we don't  know if Osama was killed in Afghanistan. If Saddam is killed will his successor be any better? Until we are able to do something to improve the people's lives and attitudes over there it's all pointless. Social change rarely comes about through occupation. Without social change in those countries there will always be more children willing to sacrifice themselves to kill their percieved enemies.

I honestly wish with all my heart that you do win and quickly. I don't feel like going there to fight and and possibly die but I may have to if the war drags on for years. But I have serious doubts that all the blood and pain will change anything. The first world countries have a lousy track record at inspiring productive changes in third world countries.

... in response to Failures, posted by Zink on Mar 30, 2003

America wants nothing in Afghanistan except to
Buy time for the Afghan government to grow strong
enough (and honest enough) to fight the taliban
and assorted nuts on their own.  That and to
pick up a few scumbags that are hding in the hills.
Time is the main question in Afghanistan.  You may
have noticed that there is not much progress.
The man that could have done it fast was Massoud,
but he was assassinated in 2001.  So now they have
to muddle along with what they've got left.

The plan in Iraq is to kill the bastards that run
the show now.  Then install a caretaker government
and transition that to some form of democracy where
all the players, big and little, have a stake and
a voice.  The Iraqies will pick what that is, with
the US vetoing anything we can't live with.  To that
extent this is an exercise of raw power.

The majority of Iraqies will see that this is a
pretty good deal, compared to how things were,
and make it happen.  As to the "insult" of having
been invaded, they will get over it.  Germany,
France, Japan, Mexico, and a bunch of other
lovely places did.  Iraq will, too.  what it comes
down to is, they get to choose between being
a First World middle east power, or a Third World
middle east sh!t hole.  They are not stupid.

Vietnam has nothing to do with this.
Religion has nothing to do with this.
Russia in Afghanistan has nothing to do with this.
Oil has nothing to do with this.

This is about changing the biggest power in the
middle east from a terror-based facist dictatorship
to a transparent democracy, with the expectation
that it will profoundly influence the whole region
for the better.  It is a bet the farm gamble on the
character, aspirations, tolerance and capacity
for forgiveness of the Iraqi people.

... in response to america wants..., posted by vagn on Mar 31, 2003

I have some time - appreciate your analysis.  I think you are giving Iraq too much credit.  I see Iran as being the biggest, strongest, most influential power in the Middle East.  However, out of Arab states I agree with you.  I am more skeptical than you on what we will get out of it - other than we will strike fear into the hearts and minds of the Islamic leaders who are contemplating terrorist bases / harboring terrorists in their countries.  Additionally, we will at least take the Iraq potential for damaging us off the list for a while - hopefully, a long while.

... in response to Bright, posted by hockeybrain on Apr 4, 2003

=== I have some time - appreciate your analysis. I think you are giving
=== Iraq too much credit. I see Iran as being the biggest, strongest, most
=== influential power in the Middle East.

The reforms aren't happening in Iran, it will be
preoccupied with internal conflict for a long time.  Funding
Hamas can hardly be called a regional leadership role.

=== However, out of Arab states I agree with you. I am more skeptical
=== than you on what we will get out of it - other than we will
=== strike fear into the hearts and minds of the Islamic leaders who
=== are contemplating terrorist bases / harboring terrorists in their
=== countries.

I believe that was the point of the "shock and awe" campaign.
It was directed at the rest of the beloved leaders in the area.
Nothing prevents them from becoming the guest of honor at the next
palace barbeque except moderate, civilized behaviour.

=== Additionally, we will at least take the Iraq potential for damaging
=== us off the list for a while - hopefully, a long while.

Yes, but that is not the strategic goal.  The strategic goal is  
to settle the palistine question and bring peace to the entire region.
Getting rid of Saddam is a step in defunding the radicals and toning
down the rhetoric.  We want Iraq to prosper and be happy because we
are a great and generous nation.  Strategically, too, we care about
the fate of Iraq because we want to make sure the intervention has      
lasting effects.

Who can resist proposing a solution to the middle east problem?
If post Saddam Iraq can come up with a plausible plan for peace in    
the region the US will back it.  The US allying with an arab country
might just make it happen, where the current situation (US seen as
in a zionist pact with israel) is hopeless.  Iraq policy backed by
the US makes Iraq potentially the 800 pound gorilla in the middle east.

I believe it is all possible, but it hangs by a thread.  The thread is
this: That the rhetoric of the "great satan" lose all credibility in Iraq.

... in response to america wants..., posted by vagn on Mar 31, 2003

Nicely written. But I'm not sure I can believe that the US government is doing this for totally altruistic reasons. Oil money and power have to be included in the equation somewhere. No country ever started a war without thinking they could recoup their financial losses. I hope you're right. But I wouldn't gamble anything on the power of people to forgive or develop tolerance. It's easier to hate than to think.

... in response to Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Mar 31, 2003

Oil has been handed over to the UN via the oil for food program.

Money, last I heard we were going to lose well over one hundred billion for our efforts.

Power, maybe a little. It depends. If we set up a representative government and help rebuild their economy, who is to say they will even want to be our friend. A lot of the people we have helped in the past have been pretty unfriendly as of late.

I am pretty sure we never recouped any losses in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or Panama. In the first Gulf war, countries like Japan gave us cash in lieu of direct participation. In the end, we still spent billions that were never recouped. Making money off of wars is not our style. Just check history if you don't believe me.

... in response to Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

Good post. Nothing like history to bring people back to reality.

... in response to Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

I'm a very avid history buff. My main interest is the personal histories of soldiers in WW2 and Vietnam but I do read many others. I have a decent grasp of the overall political situations that led to those wars as well as others. The US government may not have made money in the wars but many private people did. And those people control the government more than the little guys do. Right now your military industry is happy as a pig in you know what. They're making millions. Many American companies did qute well helping to restructure Japan and Germany after WW2. WW2 was different also as we weren't the agressors. I'm very cynical when it comes to claims that governments are doing something for absolutely no gain to themselves. Politics and big business doesn't work that way. Somewhere down the line somebody is getting rich off the bodies of your soldiers. Read your history, that's how it's always been. There are official, noble reasons for fighting and the unofficial, often disgusting real reasons. But that's enough politcs from me. Let's just say I have a healthy mistrust of propaganda no matter which government is spouting it. I do hope things work out for the best but it doesn't always happen.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

Zink,

It should be obvious to everyone that the reason this war is being waged is because Pres. Bush was truly and sincerely convinced that it was necessary in order to preempt Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons and then blackmailing Israel, the Middle East and the world.

It is a legitimate debate as to whether the U.S. *should* have initiated this war. History will be the judge. It is plain dumb to suggest the war was launched to benefit American corporations. There is simply no excuse for such a ridiculous insinuation.

You need to research the subject of "PNAC". The debate is over the wisdom of PNAC which GW, unlike his father, bought into. It is not about oil (already turned over tho the U.N.) or the MIC.

You also need to be careful with you rewriting history. WWI and WWII were not fought to benefit American companies. You insinuate so much. That is plain DUMB!!! Viet Nam was fought becasue certain intellectual who correctly held devout anti Communist views incorrectly thought we should get involved in someone else's civil war. America fought in Korea because of the commitment we made to draw the line in the dirt vs. Communist totalitarianism.

You must have read the "House of Krup" at some point and then done what some people do thereafter - see all military conflicts as some big corporate and banking conspiracy.

Sorry to have such a debate but I had to jump in on this one.

Regards from the South,

WmGO

... in response to PNAC, posted by WmGo on Apr 1, 2003

Where do you live in the south?

... in response to PNAC, posted by WmGo on Apr 1, 2003

You misread me my friend. I never claimed that the US started WW1 or 2. I never claimed that they got involved for economic reasons. The US didn't want to help the rest of us until it was blatantly obvious that they couldn't sit on the sidelines for those two. Germany started WW1 and 2 because they thought they could gain an economic advantage. I merely stated that some individuals and companies did quite well in the US because of the war. The Korean war was trying to stop an agressive country from taking over another. Vietnam was badly handled at all levels. I know many vietnam vets and I suppose that has coloured my thinking there.

Honestly answer me this why are wars fought? My opinion is these reasons. 1 personal greed of powerful people 2 economics 3 religion The people who want the wars try to come up with socially acceptable ideas to back their agression. Liebensram(spelling?) for example. Religion is usually secondary to the others. It's more of a tool than a real reason. It's easier to kill someone who behaves differently.

As for Bush's sincerity... I don't know the guy personally but his behavior scares me badly. Whether or not his motives are pure I can't say. There are other countries around the world that could be a threat to the US. Why Iraq now? The mess in Afghanistan and the war on terror aren't settled yet. Bush's policies could overextend the US forces and is very likely to be creating more enemies. I'll be called upon to fight if he gets WW3 going. If I have to die I'd like it to be a cause I believe in and that cause isn't Imperial America.

Enough said. I never should have wrote anything in a politcal discussion anyhow. Regards.

... in response to Re: PNAC, posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

A big motivation for war is fear. I think this is the factor that best describes our reasons for going after Iraq. We fear the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons upon our civillian population. Since we cannot possbly stop all of these fanatics indefinitely, our best bet is to stop the means of production within rouge states that could distrribute these weapons to our enemies.

As for me, I think our desire to protect our own citizens from another sucker punch like 9-11 is a much bigger motivating factor than oil or creating an American "colony" in the middle east. Thats just my take on it.

I agree 100% that we entered WW I and WW II too late. A french buddy of mine said there are a lot of old timers in the French countryside who still are angry at the USA for waiting too long to enter both wars.

... in response to Fear is another factor, posted by DanM on Apr 2, 2003

I totally understand people not wanting another 9-11 to happen. But I don't see large scale ground combat as being effective against terrorism. I protect my own and I expect other people to do the same. I supported the attacks in Afghanistan. You can let things like that go unpunished. But what happened? Osama is most likely still at large and the US spent millions blowing up a bunch of rocks. I thought that the invasion would be a smoke screen for the smaller more effect units to do the real job. But I haven't read anything to make me believe that they accomplished much. I think the effort could have been used more effectively elsewhere. But Rumsfeld ignored my advice the last time we chatted(lol). I'm just an armchair general. We all know how much use they are.

... in response to Re: Fear is another factor, posted by Zink on Apr 2, 2003

The point of Afghanistan was not retribution. At least not as I understand it. That was a nice added benefit, but the real reason we were there was to limit their capacity to inflict future 9-11s. We killed or captured a lot of personel, evicted them from their principal safe haven, disrupted much of the financial side their organization and generally put these guys on the defensive.

The point of Iraq is to take out a likely source of WMD that could be used against us. At least that is Bush's position as I understand it and it is the position I support. All the stuff about democracy in Iraq and other issues are all secondary to removing a likely threat.

... in response to Re: Re: Fear is another factor, posted by DanM on Apr 2, 2003

Afghanistan was about overthrowing and destroying as much as possible the government that harbored, protected, sanctioned, collaborated with and assisted the group (al Quaeda) that is responsible for the 9-11 attacks. It is also about hunting down and destroying al Quaeda. Both are perfectly just and legitimate. An act of war must be dealt with swiftly, decisively and severely. Although the job there remains to be finished, Bush scores an A+ on that front.

Iraq is about not allowing a tyrant with whom we negotiated a cease fire treaty to defy us after violating the terms of the treaty - as well as removing a possible future threat to the whole region. This is also legitimate morally and legally. Whether it turns out to be wise politically remains to be seen...I predict it will give rise to a new Arab/Muslim Alliance. It will be a long time before it can act...but it will at a moment of America's weakness. Ezekiel 38 and 39 will come to pass.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

... in response to Re: Re: Fear is another factor, posted by DanM on Apr 2, 2003

I partially agree with you. But there is one point I believe that many people miss. In order to keep these countries from becoming a future haven for enemies of the US, you will have to establish a colonial style government with full military backing. Otherwise as soon as the troops pull out things will revert to the way they were before. I don't believe that the US government really has a long term plan on how to change the under lying causes of it all. I'm not sure that there is a way to change the underlying causes. Who is in charge doesn't change a country. For example did Kennedy's death totally change how Americans thought and acted? You need to change their thinking from the bottom up. Fast wars rarely do that. We are talking about cultures that are steeped in hardship and bloodshed. You take out the top guys and there will be others to step into the gap and nothing really changed.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

Yep!!!

... in response to Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

Glad to meet a fellow history buff. My favorite are biographies of historical characters. I am currently reading a book on Catherine the Great. My next one will be on a guy named Pugachev. I doubt I am spelling it correctly, but I hope you know what I mean. I also like WW II history. I went through a period where I read everything I could get my hands on. My favorite guy from that period has always been Rommel.

Sorry about the Oliver Stonish comment. I did not mean for that to sound sarcastic, but I can see where it could be taken the wrong way. Sorry. I just need more than motive (of some) and opportunity to believe its happening.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

Don't worry, Dan. I just started to read this board when you were very active. I alway thought you were quite diplomatic. I'm not as thin skinned as some of the guys either. I usually don't get into political discussions. But at times I feel the need to make a comment. Politics is murky water at the best. It's pretty difficult to know the real motives and almost nothing is ever black and white.

Rommel is something of a hero for me. He may have been German but he was honourable and no Nazi. He could possibly be the best leader in history. He did a lot with very little in Africa. His men loved him and his enemies admired him.

Catherine was an interesting person. I've read a few things about her but nothing in depth. Very influential person. Most of what I know about Pugachev is from a Pushkin story "the Captain's daughter" and a few footnotes from other sources. Both should be very interesting to read about.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

Thanks for understanding and thanks for the compliment about being diplomatic too.

I agree politics is murky, but I do not think these guys are always intelligent or unified enough to develop the complex conspiracies that we might see on television. Sure there are some centers of power, but I think most of these are temporary at best. I think you give these guys too much credit when you think they are pulling our strings in some coordinated manner over decades. Yes they are selfish and not too constrained by anything like a conscience, but most of these guys are nothing more than self-serving opportunist. Lots of politicians, but few statesmen. Look at most legislation. People do quick fix compromises with little attention to the long view. Its hard for me not to take this at face value. I just don't see this as a smoke screen for some deep conspiracy. If you see things differently, then you might be right. It's just that I am not sold yet myself.

As for history, I really like guys like Rommel, Hannibal, Alexander, Peter the Great, Charles the IX of Sweden, Frederick the Great, Henry IV, etc. I could go on forever. They all showed a combination of confidence and creative genius that was very special. These guys were not limited by precedence. I suppose Rommel was my favorite, because he has the most available information regarding his life. I have read everything by Lidell Hart and any other scraps of information I could find. The last Rommel thing for me to read is a translated copy of his book. I think its called "Infantry Attacks". Once I read that, I think I am out of Rommel reading material.

Catherine was a very cool chick. She was a survivor, but she also had an impressive long view with regards to policy.

Are you going to be at Jack's barbecue in Dallas?

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

Shame, Shame... Ha ha ha.

... in response to What? No, Manstein or Forrest - amongest..., posted by BURKE89 on Apr 4, 2003

Manstien was pretty impressive and Forrest was also a talented General. Its just that we did not have time to list them all. We could have also talked about Zhukov, Stonewall Jackson, Sherman, Guderian, Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Ceasar, Ghengis Khan, Donitz, Student, Bismark, Richard the Lionhearted or so many more. You just have to draw a line somewhere. : )

... in response to Re: What? No, Manstein or Forrest - amon..., posted by DanM on Apr 4, 2003

I agree wholeheartedly; however, von Manstein is the:

"General of WWII - bar none." The Crimean campaign, the 4th battle of Kharkov - exhibited near "supernatural" abilities, indeed.

My comments were more "anti-Rommel" than anything else.

Regards,Vaughn

PS. von Manteuffel was the "
tank-lad" of the war, IMHO.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by DanM on Apr 1, 2003

I'm not a conspiracy theory guy. I don't believe that there is some grand design to get us all. I just think that the moral standing of most politicians isn't that good. They're very good at saying whatever they think people want to hear and doing whatever they want anyhow.

I've been going to buy Rommel's book for a long time. But I never did. I only have one book dedicated to him. It is about his tactics in Normandy and what might have happened if he had been able to fully implement his ideas. I've read a few things on the others that you mentioned too. If you want a brief rundown of Russian history and other things this is a good site
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/index.html

No, I won't be going to Texas any time soon. Things up here and in Russia take all my time. I'd like to go to a gathering like that and meet a few more people who're involved in this. Maybe in a couple of years.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: america wants..., posted by Zink on Apr 1, 2003

You said, "I'm very cynical when it comes to claims that governments are doing something for absolutely no gain to themselves." That leaves little room for discussion. Of course I understand that self interest is a huge motivational factor for everyone. Always has been and always will be. I just cannot accept that its the only factor.

I think our self interest is built around removing a threat to us. Economically, this will still be cheaper than a lot of 9-11 scenarios so its something of a preventative  cost.

As for the cynical thoughts, I am sure some things are going on but I don't think its so dramatic. I just don't see the massive conspiracies by the military-industrial machine. It just seems a little Oliver Stonish to me. Sorry.

... in response to america wants..., posted by vagn on Mar 31, 2003

sounds like the best scenario i've heard so far......bravo!