Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 03-25-2003, 10:05 AM

The U.S. government itself was, and has continued to be, as guilty as a few of these nuts at giving poor treatment to veterans.

I'm not going to, but I could recite my brother's experiences with the government/army, both while in Vietnam and afterwards, as anecdotal evidence of your claim.

Mr. Superbad · 03-25-2003, 10:17 AM

It looks like there is finally some kind of uprising against Saddams troops in Basra. This was expected, since it's one of the cities that rebelled against Saddam after the first Gulf War. Who knows how that will play out.

It looks like military plans for this war were compromised for political reasons. That doesn't bode well for the rest of the campaign.

Quote:

Knowledgeable defense and administration officials say Rumsfeld and his civilian aides at first wanted to commit no more than 60,000 American troops to the war on the assumption that the Iraqis would capitulate in two days.

Intelligence officials say Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and other Pentagon civilians ignored much of the advice of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency in favor of reports from the Iraqi opposition and from Israeli sources that predicted an immediate uprising against Saddam once the Americans attacked.

...

Dorff said: "Expectations were raised for something that might be quick and relatively painless. What we're seeing in the first few days probably ought to dispel that. Part of the problem is that expectations were raised that we would march in and everybody would surrender - sort of the four-day scenario of 1991."

Instead of streams of surrendering Iraqi soldiers, the American and British forces report that they are holding around 2,000 enemy prisoners.

Rumsfeld's strategy under fire as war risks become increasingly apparent

Bill · 03-25-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
The U.S. government itself was, and has continued to be, as guilty as a few of these nuts at giving poor treatment to veterans.

I'm not going to, but I could recite my brother's experiences with the government/army, both while in Vietnam and afterwards, as anecdotal evidence of your claim.

Largely unreported in the media, probably due to war coverage, is the fact that the Congress passed a budget resolution within the past few days that calls for cutting veterans benefits in order to help pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. That's a treasonous action when the USA is at war, in my humble opinion.....

== Bill

TealVeal · 03-25-2003, 10:20 AM

Bill can you link to this? I'd love to be able to show this to my mother, thanks.

Jimmy Higgins · 03-25-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by enemigo
About half of Americans think that Saddam was involved with September 11th as well... The Bush administration has never explicitly said that, but everytime I've heard Saddam or Iraq mentioned by Bush, Rumsfeld, etc... they have mentioned September 11th or al Qaeda in the practically the same breath.
richard

I have it on tape, and will pop it in, but I'm nearly 100% sure that the speech Bush gave on 9/11/01 (the day of, not the year after), included Iraq. I'll confirm it later.

You've got to listen more carefully, Iran and Syria are popping up on the propaganda meter now. This is starting to scare me. And to hell with them if they think they'll draft me.

MortalWombat · 03-25-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TealVeal
Bill can you link to this? I'd love to be able to show this to my mother, thanks.

Here are two news stories that decry the congressional budget cuts, one from an anti-war group,
Veterans Against the Iraq War

and one from a pro-war group,
Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Jesse · 03-25-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill
But what I was really referring to is that it is increasingly clear, even at this early stage, that the Iraqi population isn't welcoming us with open arms as a liberating army, the way that the Italians greeted the Americans as Patton marched through Sicily, for instance. I doubt that the reaction of the average Iraqi would be so very different than the reaction of the average Arab in other countries: lots of protests against the US-led war, and virtually no shows of support in the Arab world. Even Saudi Arabia is calling for a cease fire. The only real support we have in the Arab world are Kuwait and Qatar, both of whom have axes to grind against Saddam.

Bush sold this war to the American people as a war of liberation for Iraq. We were going in to liberate the Iraqi people. Did Bush ask any of them if they really wanted to be liberated? I don't think so. Its a pure propaganda play. The soldiers who are surrendering are the hungry ones that Saddam didn't give a damn about. Yes, some civilians appear to hate Saddam and welcome the Americans. But a far larger group appears to be part of the "irregulars" who are fighting us, and the bulk of the civilians appear to hate the Americans even more than any ill will they might have for Saddam.

I sincerely doubt that the majority of the Iraqi people would willingly subjugate themselves to the American military, even if it meant losing their current leadership. If the shoe were on the other foot, as much as I hate Bush, I would not welcome an invading army from any other country to depose him.

== Bill

Bill, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the feelings of the Iraqi people here--see my comments on the What Do the Iraqi People Want? thread. A lot of the reason they are not all welcoming us with open arms (and some of them are) may be that they do not trust us to finish what we started and get rid of Saddam, fearing that we will take just the sort of course you suggest here (remember how we let them down during the first Gulf War), and also that they don't trust we won't just leave Iraq in the hands of another despot. Resentment about the sanctions surely plays a major role as well. But even with all those bad feelings and suspicions, almost all the attempts to gauge the opinion of the Iraqi people that I have seen suggest that they see U.S. occupation as the lesser of two evils, if the alternative is to leave Saddam in power. The comparison of your "hatred" of Bush to the Iraqis' hatred of Saddam is somewhat facile, I think. Would you feel the same way about an invasion if you were a Chilean living under Pinochet or a Russian living under Stalin, for example?

Farren · 03-25-2003, 11:37 AM

Thanks Bill for an extremely well written post. My opposition to this war didn't even factor in your considerations. You have massively re-inforced my opinions.

this link, Robert Novak's article on Rumsfeld's refusal to let the military give its professional opinion should be read by a lot of the hawks here.

Quote:

Breaking all precedent, Rumsfeld had announced 14 months in advance that Shinseki would be stepping down as chief of staff. Thus, the general was a longtime lame duck February 25 when Sen. Carl Levin, senior Democrat on Armed Services, asked him how many troops would be needed to occupy Iraq.

His "several hundred thousand" answer was so far from the official line that it confirmed Rumsfeld's view of Clintonite generals out of control. While Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz declared Shinseki "wildly off the mark" and Rumsfeld also disagreed, the general stuck to his estimate. That left it to the secretary of the Army in testimony before Senate Armed Services last Thursday.

White anticipated the inevitable question, and had carefully drafted an equivocal answer: "Gen. Shinseki has some experience in this, having run the stabilization force in Bosnia, and he's a very experienced officer." Pointing out that "there are others" who disagree, White concluded: "You have two views on this right now, and expertise in support of each view." That surely was no ringing affirmation of the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz line at an hour when White's future was shaky.

The "several hundred thousand" here refers to the estimated number of soldiers required to "win the peace" in a post-Saddam Iraq. On the one side we have a general with war experience estimating hundreds of thousands to stabilise Iraq, on the other two politicians. Draw your own conclusions

theyeti · 03-25-2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

From an article originally posted by Mr. Superbad
Intelligence officials say Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and other Pentagon civilians ignored much of the advice of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency in favor of reports from the Iraqi opposition and from Israeli sources that predicted an immediate uprising against Saddam once the Americans attacked.

You've got to be kidding me. A few moments thought reveals why this is extremely unlikely ever to happen. Why would opposition groups or rebels risk their lives against Saddam when America has already pledged to oust him? Of course they're going to let the US do all the dirty work once they've committed themselves. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz must be fools.

theyeti

motorhead · 03-25-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill

But what I was really referring to is that it is increasingly clear, even at this early stage, that the Iraqi population isn't welcoming us with open arms as a liberating army, the way that the Italians greeted the Americans as Patton marched through Sicily, for instance. I doubt that the reaction of the average Iraqi would be so very different than the reaction of the average Arab in other countries: lots of protests against the US-led war, and virtually no shows of support in the Arab world. Even Saudi Arabia is calling for a cease fire. The only real support we have in the Arab world are Kuwait and Qatar, both of whom have axes to grind against Saddam.

I've heard a few reports from various news organizations that the reason most Iraqi's do not appear welcoming is because they're afraid of being punished by Saddam's troops. I have no idea if this is true but it seems logical.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2003, 10:05 AM	#11
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The U.S. government itself was, and has continued to be, as guilty as a few of these nuts at giving poor treatment to veterans. I'm not going to, but I could recite my brother's experiences with the government/army, both while in Vietnam and afterwards, as anecdotal evidence of your claim.

03-25-2003, 10:20 AM	#14
TealVeal Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WM Posts: 208	Bill can you link to this? I'd love to be able to show this to my mother, thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.