Gerald Ford dies.

[Rob Babcock]

I was going to send you a PM, but as I've got that blasted "Awaiting Registration Conf" under my name I can't, so I'll just speak publicly as it were.

That's really odd, Buckle. You've been a member for a year or two, and you have an avatar...We should check with the Admin and see what's up with that.

 

[Buckle-meister]

I'm hoping to make it to Scotland sometime late this year or early 08.

Well, if you're in my neck of the woods, if you fancy, give me a shout.

That's really odd, Buckle...We should check with the Admin and see what's up with that.

Thanks Rob. It appears to be sorted now.

 

[stratman]

Thanks, Robbie (wow no B.?!)

I'll pm you when my plans are sorted out, but we're looking to spend a few days in Scotland then hop over to Ireland.

 

[tbewick]

Our armed forces are asked to do a mission with their hands tied behind their backs. If you're going to war, go to war with all assets and pull no punches. Get in do the mission and get out. Forget what the world community says, no matter what at the end they still will hate us. For one reason: envy. Our imperfect system has produced the best country in the world, like or not, at least you can disagree with the government and not be killed for it. Enough of my rant.

Surely one of the reasons for the armed forces difficulty is the lack of troop numbers which were initially deployed. Perhaps this was because of Donald Rumsfield's faith in the 'shock and awe' tactics and the technological capability of the US armed forces.

I think the criticism of US foreign policy is more that it has failed (in regard to Iraq) rather than it being a criticism of the US overall. I think that it's worth remembering that in the first Iraq war under Bush Sr., the US had the support of countries in the region and the backing of the UN. This shows that acting using the existing multilateral institutions is beneficial for everyone since it can lead to successful outcomes.

 

[stratman]

Surely one of the reasons for the armed forces difficulty is the lack of troop numbers which were initially deployed. Perhaps this was because of Donald Rumsfield's faith in the 'shock and awe' tactics and the technological capability of the US armed forces.

I think the criticism of US foreign policy is more that it has failed (in regard to Iraq) rather than it being a criticism of the US overall. I think that it's worth remembering that in the first Iraq war under Bush Sr., the US had the support of countries in the region and the backing of the UN. This shows that acting using the existing multilateral institutions is beneficial for everyone since it can lead to successful outcomes.

Lack of numbers is ONE of the difficulties, the most tenous is: don't engage unless you can see your target clearly. Example, sniper in building, don't fire back unless you're sure you can see and hit. Correct way: "We're pinned down, send in a chopper take out building, here are coordinates". "Shock and awe" was based on the German blitzkrieg, applied to rapid deployment, engagement, annihilation of enemy defences, pacification, we haven't done this in Iraq, we only instituted rapid deployment, engagement, police action, casualties by attrition (sounds like 'Nam to me).

Under Bush Sr., conditions were a little different, but the only real "support" in the region came from Saudi Arabia *(whose best interest was to keep Saddam away from their country), as for the UN, how many failed resolutions were passed, not passed, voted, not voted before Sr.(and a number of Democrats) gave up and dragged the UN screaming and kicking into the conflict? (I really wouldn't want get into the UN, for there I can give you one failure after the other.)Multi-lateral institutions would work only if they were balanced, fair and unbiased.

I guess you've forgotten the "ugly American" syndrome. If it's policy you hate, you don't kidnap and kill Americans, you don't pilot a civilian airplane into a civilian installation (building), you do that to military targets. We were at odds with the Nazis in the late 30's, but they weren't kidnapping Americans when when traveling to Europe, in fact a lot of people went to Germany right before the conflict began.

*Anyone who is under the illusion the Saudi Arabia are our friends, please wake up now. They're the sponsors of the WAHABI sect of radical Islam, the good folks that have brought us our present woes. What people seem to forget is that the powerbrokers of the area are secterian and tribal, they only understand brute force. Tribal chiefs wether they ride a Bentley or camel don't really care about foreign policy, rights, etc. etc., they just want their tribal piece of the pie not to be taken away.

 

[furrycute]

We had legitmate reasons for entering the first gulf war: Iraq invaded Kuwait. He endangered the flow of Middle Eastern Oil. The world supported us wholeheartedly for our military intervention.

What reasons did we have for getting into the second gulf war? Al Quaida had nothing to do with Saddam, they were in Afghanistan's backyard. Weapons of mass destruction? Sure, it's been over three years since we got into Iraq, we still haven't found them yet. Toppling a dictator? There are plenty of dictators on our side of the globe, Castro comes to mind, not to mention many of the Latin American military juntas. We just had to go out of our way, all the way to the other side of the globe to topple an arab dictator. While we are at it, we might as well be consistent with our policy, and start toppling the regimes of Saudi Arabia, United Arab of Emirates, Qatar, and let's not forget to add Kuwait to the list while we are at it. For crying out loud, all those countries are still absolute monarchies, MUCH worse than a right wing dictator. Gee, I wonder why the rest of the world didn't support us when we got ourselves invovled in the second gulf war.

And about this spreading the flower of democracy in the Middle East thing. Oh sure... Face it, we went to Iraq because Iraq is sitting on top of the world's second largest known oil reserve. Strategically, we made the right move. But please, stop treating us ordinary citizens like idiots, and telling us that we went there because we wanted to topple a cruel dictator and we want to spread the seed of democracy in the Middle East, that's just lame.

 

[stratman]

We had legitmate reasons for entering the first gulf war: Iraq invaded Kuwait. He endangered the flow of Middle Eastern Oil. The world supported us wholeheartedly for our military intervention.

What reasons did we have for getting into the second gulf war? Al Quaida had nothing to do with Saddam, they were in Afghanistan's backyard. Weapons of mass destruction? Sure, it's been over three years since we got into Iraq, we still haven't found them yet. Toppling a dictator? There are plenty of dictators on our side of the globe, Castro comes to mind, not to mention many of the Latin American military juntas. We just had to go out of our way, all the way to the other side of the globe to topple an arab dictator. While we are at it, we might as well be consistent with our policy, and start toppling the regimes of Saudi Arabia, United Arab of Emirates, Qatar, and let's not forget to add Kuwait to the list while we are at it. For crying out loud, all those countries are still absolute monarchies, MUCH worse than a right wing dictator. Gee, I wonder why the rest of the world didn't support us when we got ourselves invovled in the second gulf war.

And about this spreading the flower of democracy in the Middle East thing. Oh sure... Face it, we went to Iraq because Iraq is sitting on top of the world's second largest known oil reserve. Strategically, we made the right move. But please, stop treating us ordinary citizens like idiots, and telling us that we went there because we wanted to topple a cruel dictator and we want to spread the seed of democracy in the Middle East, that's just lame.

I agree democracy will not work in the middle east(too tribal). As for Saddam's removal, I don't know if it was the right thing to do, like it or not he was a stablelising force. My gripe basically is how the war is being fought. If you're going to war, go with a defined objective. As Shakespeare said "cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war." Get the the lawyers out of the way. War is war and its messy, don't tie the soldiers down with ridiculous rules of engagement. As for the oil in Iraq, we are making sure the supply isn't going to get compromised, we never robbed Iraq of oil, we always bought it at "fair" market value as set by OPEC. As for treating citizens like idiots, both parties are guilty of that. Kennedy cut a deal with Kruschev never to invade Cuba if Cuba would remove the missiles, which was never mentioned to the public, it came to light years later. Kruschev never blinked yet it was played off in the media as a big triumph for the administration (plus we had to get rid of our medium range missiles we had in Turkey.) In turn over 3000 US trained Cubans that wanted to retake their homeland were left to be captured and tortured on the Bay of Pigs beach head, we can spend all day going back and forth on this both parties leave much to be desired at times.