Not enough boots on the ground

[bolinger]

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

I don't remember Clinton bombing Baghdad or any other major cities in Iraq. I believe he bombed military targets in order to enforce the no-fly-zone. If you think there is little difference between the light-bombing Clinton did and the full-scale bombardment of Iraqi cities by Bush, you'd be mistaken.

But I digress; this thread it about the piss-poor job our military did in keeping the order in Iraq. Try and imagine how devastating it would be to our culture if the Smithsonian was ransacked and looted. Now multiply that devastation by 100. The artifacts held by Iraq dated to one of the oldest modern civilizations known to man. Many of the artifacts were merely in storage, still waiting to be translated. But Bush was never really a man of science; nor is he a man who tries to think things through before acting.

A very small percentage of our soldiers over there could have been assigned to protect the history of man and could have prevented the rape of archeological wonders. Lack of foresight is to blame here, and it will eventually return full circle to bite this administration in the ass when it comes time to re-elect.

 

[cpumaster]

riot happened caused US doesn't want to shoot the rioters and the looters, if US will do that (but taking hit in the world and possibly US public opinion), you don't need many boots on the ground... why do you think Saddam was able to stay in power for so long despite all the terrorist threat and action (according to Saddam) US was making on him, plus the occasional menace of rebellion in the north and south? Do you think his soldiers AK-47s are for show only (until the current war)?

 

[Wheezer]

bolinger...read this the reasons he gave for the bombing in 98 are the same bush gave for invading.

Now lets see, not only do our troops have to try and keep the peace, they have to do it without killing civilans, while returning fire to people shooting at them. Yeah, it sounds easy and all.....keeping the looters at bay should have been a cakewalk under those circumstances.

What some of you people are forgetting is that 48 hours prior to the start Saddam and his motley band had an opprtunity to leave the country, they failed to do so. Perhaps if he had things would have turned out different.

Explain this "cradle of civilization" thing. There are other theories.

what about this?

or this?

or pehaps this?

Clinton didn't INVADE them, he bombed them as a precautionary measure. Biiiig difference

So...according to you as long as we bomb them back to the stone age as precautionary measure as cited in my above link, but do not send troops in as a precautionary measure it's ok...... I see.

Let's think about that, if all we did was simply bomb eveything what do you think the civilian casulty rate would have been? higher or lower?

Do you think that the looting would have still taken place?

If so how do you think Saddams remaining forces would have handled it? Let it continue without interfering, stop it without major violence, or just start shooting people at random?

I would have to say that there would be a helluva lot more dead bodies in the street.

If we had just stuck with the bombing then who would get the electricity back up, try to get fresh water to those in need? get food to those that need it?

yeah I can see how a simple bombing campagin could have done just as well.

 

[bolinger]

Explain this "cradle of civilization" thing. There are other theories.

We're not arguing about who has the right theory. Just because you disagree the Mesopotamia may not be the cradle of civilization doesn't discount its historical importance, and doesn't lessen the severe impact looting did to those priceless artifacts.

 

[Wheezer]

ok and we are responsible for that how?

would you feel better if it got hit with a bomb?

and who is to say that that building was not already ransacked before we even got there?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
riot happened caused US doesn't want to shoot the rioters and the looters, if US will do that (but taking hit in the world and possibly US public opinion), you don't need many boots on the ground... why do you think Saddam was able to stay in power for so long despite all the terrorist threat and action (according to Saddam) US was making on him, plus the occasional menace of rebellion in the north and south? Do you think his soldiers AK-47s are for show only (until the current war)?

The soldiers don't seem to have any problem shooting protestors so I don't think they would hesitate to shoot rioters. The conservative right wing freaks in the US don't care if Iraqi's are killed, after reading articles by people like Ann Coulter etc, its quite aparent they have dehuminized Arabs much as the Nazis dehuminzed Jews. Of course, this is only the extreme conservatives, but I would not be so surprised if there were a good number of them in this current administration.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
bolinger...read this the reasons he gave for the bombing in 98 are the same bush gave for invading.

From that article...
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

Last I checked, Hans Blix and the crew were in Iraq up until days before our invasion, when they were forced to leave not because Saddam kicked them out, but because they would be threatened by our bombardment.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support after Iraq prevented UN inspectors from doing their job. Bush invaded the entire country under the pretense of non-compliance with the UN (even though the UN inspectors themselves were still in Iraq and asking for more time). Talk about mental masturbation...

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: konichiwa<how come it took us twelve years to realize that diplomacy was failing?

Apparently it didn't. Clinton bombed them in 98.

Clinton's bombing (and multiple bombing threats) were an extension of his diplomacy and a way to keep the UN inspectors from being expelled from Iraq. Bush's excursion completely lacked diplomatic undertoe, following the norm of Bushite politics.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support after Iraq prevented UN inspectors from doing their job. Bush invaded the entire country under the pretense of non-compliance with the UN (even though the UN inspectors themselves were still in Iraq and asking for more time). Talk about mental masturbation...

What is it about these simple facts that are so hard for pro-warers to understand?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: bolinger
I don't remember Clinton bombing Baghdad or any other major cities in Iraq. I believe he bombed military targets in order to enforce the no-fly-zone.

You aren't the only one with selective memory but at any rate:

US mulls escalating its little-noticed war on Iraq
---------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, Aug 13,1999 (AFP)

"Iraq's air defence command on Tuesday said the latest raids had brought the number of sorties by the allied aircraft to 11,220 since December's Operation Desert Fox, when Britain and the United States bombed Baghdad for Iraq's alleged lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors."

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support after Iraq prevented UN inspectors from doing their job. Bush invaded the entire country under the pretense of non-compliance with the UN (even though the UN inspectors themselves were still in Iraq and asking for more time). Talk about mental masturbation...

oh he did?

So an asprin factory is a military target?

Also from the article:

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Now why do you suppose they did that?

And what do you suppose Saddam did the 3-4 years the inspectors we not there?

He didn't just let his WMD program die...do you think?

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

I found that statement to be quite ironic since that's what he and Hillary did to the Whitehouse before they left.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support after Iraq prevented UN inspectors from doing their job. Bush invaded the entire country under the pretense of non-compliance with the UN (even though the UN inspectors themselves were still in Iraq and asking for more time). Talk about mental masturbation...

oh he did?

So an asprin factory is a military target?

LOL, somebody saw Bowling for Columbine. I'm not claiming the Clinton attack was righteous in any way, and that incident was deplorable, but imagine what the O'whackos would be saying if an incident like this happens or happened in Desert Storm II: "Everybody makes mistakes, with the amount of bombs we dropped one or two is liable to hit something we didn't mean for it to hit." Or, "Our intelligence may be the best in the world but it isn't infallible." Same goes here...

Also from the article:

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Now why do you suppose they did that?

And what do you suppose Saddam did the 3-4 years the inspectors we not there?

He didn't just let his WMD program die...do you think?

Great justification for a military invasion. Maybe he did something in 3-4 years we weren't inspecting, maybe he has chemical weapons, maybe just because he's a radical we have to invade!!!!!!!

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

I found that statement to be quite ironic since that's what he and Hillary did to the Whitehouse before they left.[/quote]

Yet another Clinton basher. You deftly change the subject...

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support

*sigh* There was no UN approval:

DEEP RIFTS OPENING IN GULF COALITION

China, France,Russia warn U.S. to avoid hasty move

Deep rifts opened in the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq on Thursday as Russia, China and France issued strong statements against U.S. plans to bomb Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions. Russian President Boris Yeltsin vowed that he "won't allow" a U.S. military strike
against Iraq "under any circumstances.

French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, who last week allowed that force might be necessary as a last resort, said Thursday that the United States and Britain would be alone if they were to launch a military strike against Iraq anytime soon. "That is not just the French position, it is the position of all Europeans as far as I can see, apart from the British. Obviously it is the position of the Arab world, the Russians, the Chinese," Vedrine said. China, too, expressed concern at the U.S. buildup of force in the Gulf region.

Beijing's foreign minister, Qian Qichen, said, "China is extremely and definitely opposed to the use of military force because its use will result in a tremendous amount of human casualties and create more turmoil in the region and even could cause new conflicts."

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: konichiwa I'm not claiming the Clinton attack was righteous in any way, and that incident was deplorable,

Then was all that blather about extensions of diplomacy and UN approval?

 

[Wheezer]

Yet another Clinton basher. You deftly change the subject

I'll stick to the subject all night long...not a problem here....I just found that humorus.

Back to the subject at hand.

Clinton didn't INVADE them, he bombed them as a precautionary measure. Biiiig difference

That is YOUR statement.

Only now after you have been called on it are you backtracking and saying the action was deplorable.

If you did not think he was justified then you should have put it in your original statement.

Clintons attack by bombing the country into submission and Bushes use of ground forces are both based on the same justifications.
The difference is that Clinton would rather just have a warship pull into range let loose with some missiles and then leave....he basically did a drive by on those people.

Bush on the other hand knows that you just can't send over a few bombers and lauch a few missiles. If you are going to make the mess you had better damned well be prepared to stay and help try to clean it up.


The biggest part of the war is over..get over it.

What we need to focus on right now is trying to help these people rebuild, weather they want us there or not.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What we need to focus on right now is trying to help these people rebuild, weather they want us there or not.

Seems like you would accept any and all help that is offered if the goal was to rebuild . . . instead the US government is intent on rebuilding Iraq in the same fashion it destroyed it . . . on their terms. Guess what we are responsible for rebuilding Iraq and all it takes to get the majority of Iraqis to help is to provide security, clean water, power, and food. The US government and certainly the US military can do absolutely NONE of that well with the possible exception of security . . . we can kill some MOFOs like a champ.

International agencies skilled at humanitarian relief should be organizing and executing the VAST majority of operations in Iraq. The UN Oil for Food Program can fund their operations (plus a sizable US contribution for blowing stuff up). Such a plan would certainly work but the Bush admin is admanantly opposed b/c 1) the UN/NGOs would get credit for sustaining/rebuilding Iraq, 2) the US would STILL be on the hook for the costs, and 3) the US would likely have greatly reduced influence over the future of Iraq.

 

[Wheezer]

The UN Oil for Food Program can fund their operations

yeah..that was such a great plan before.

I agree the UN should have a role.....not a LEADING role however. They should let these people learn to govern themselves, and be there only in a support capacity, to help maintain hospitals, electricity and food. The US should also shoulder the reponseability. I have never ever once said that we should not. Like I said before....we made the mess we need to shoulder our portion of the rebuild.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support after Iraq prevented UN inspectors from doing their job. Bush invaded the entire country under the pretense of non-compliance with the UN (even though the UN inspectors themselves were still in Iraq and asking for more time). Talk about mental masturbation...

Desert Fox was done without UN support. Clinton did not ask permission from the UN to execute Desert Fox.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support after Iraq prevented UN inspectors from doing their job. Bush invaded the entire country under the pretense of non-compliance with the UN (even though the UN inspectors themselves were still in Iraq and asking for more time). Talk about mental masturbation...

Desert Fox was done without UN support. Clinton did not ask permission from the UN to execute Desert Fox.

Nor from congress.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support after Iraq prevented UN inspectors from doing their job. Bush invaded the entire country under the pretense of non-compliance with the UN (even though the UN inspectors themselves were still in Iraq and asking for more time). Talk about mental masturbation...

Desert Fox was done without UN support. Clinton did not ask permission from the UN to execute Desert Fox.

Nor from congress.

Well Dashole did help pass the 1998 Iraqi liberation act, does that count?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Format C:
What he's saying is we should've just bombed the bejeebus out of 'em from now to eternity just as long as we didn't *GASP* invade. I used to believe that there was an idiot born every minute. I've been convinced of late though that the interim is much shorter.

*sigh* Clinton bombed military targets with UN support after Iraq prevented UN inspectors from doing their job. Bush invaded the entire country under the pretense of non-compliance with the UN (even though the UN inspectors themselves were still in Iraq and asking for more time). Talk about mental masturbation...

Desert Fox was done without UN support. Clinton did not ask permission from the UN to execute Desert Fox.

Nor from congress.

Well Dashole did help pass the 1998 Iraqi liberation act, does that count?

Not unless funding the opposition = bombs in Baghdad.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Wheezer
bolinger...read this the reasons he gave for the bombing in 98 are the same bush gave for invading.

From that article...
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

Last I checked, Hans Blix and the crew were in Iraq up until days before our invasion, when they were forced to leave not because Saddam kicked them out, but because they would be threatened by our bombardment.

You see, that's a Catch-22. Sure, there were inspectors in Iraq, but they were only there to try and stave off an invasion. If we didn't invade them, there would be no inspectors. You simply can't mobilize a few hundred thousand troops, move them half way across the world, let them sit in the desert for months, and then simply come home without doing anything. Once the decision to invade was made, there was no stopping it, certainly not with the late addition of weapons inspectors.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Wheezer
bolinger...read this the reasons he gave for the bombing in 98 are the same bush gave for invading.

From that article...
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

Last I checked, Hans Blix and the crew were in Iraq up until days before our invasion, when they were forced to leave not because Saddam kicked them out, but because they would be threatened by our bombardment.

You see, that's a Catch-22. Sure, there were inspectors in Iraq, but they were only there to try and stave off an invasion. If we didn't invade them, there would be no inspectors. You simply can't mobilize a few hundred thousand troops, move them half way across the world, let them sit in the desert for months, and then simply come home without doing anything. Once the decision to invade was made, there was no stopping it, certainly not with the late addition of weapons inspectors.

See, what I really want to know is when the decision to invade was officially made. It would not surprise me if it was made before 1441.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
See, what I really want to know is when the decision to invade was officially made. It would not surprise me if it was made before 1441.

I wouldn't doubt it. The whole UN resolution charade appears to me to have been a political move designed to try and make a planned war legitimate in the eyes of those who worship the UN. 1441 had no bearing on whether the war would have happened, but it was simply an attempt to quiet people who put their faith in the UN.