Look out!!!

[TheBear]

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons........

....The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.....

.....So Iraq has abused its final chance......

....Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so...." - Excerpts from President Clinton's address to the nation, 17 Dec 1998, on Operation Desert Fox.

 

[coastie]

Hehe... who here put a Texas accent instead of an Arky accent with those words when you read it?

 

[Red Panda]

Today at 06:27 PM TheBear said this in Post #1

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons........

....The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.....

.....So Iraq has abused its final chance......

....Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so...." - Excerpts from President Clinton's address to the nation, 17 Dec 1998, on Operation Desert Fox.

These two events are not the same.

Notice the fact that during Desert Fox, the US administration didn't meet with Iraqi dissidents, to discuss oil revenues.  And we didn't try to swat a mosquito with a hand grenade, which is what we're doing now. 

And if I were given a chance, I'd rather spend the next 50 years shooting Tomahawks at Saddam, rather than starting a war that (a) we haven't planned for, (b) the rest of the world is against, and (c) for which we don't have a solid "what's next" plan for after the war.

 

 

[MichaelFJF]

The two events are extremely similar.

50 years of Tomahawks would accomplish nothing - Clinton proved that in Afghanistan.

Haven't planned for? Do you own a TV?

The rest of the world is not our concern.

We'll prop 'em up with money - just like we always do. M

 

[Aurelius]

I supported Desert Storm and Desert Fox.

I see no justifiable reason for supporting the current proposal.

 

[Red Panda]

Today at 08:48 PM MichaelFJF said this in Post #4

The two events are extremely similar.

No, they are not.  I sense a history lesson coming on.....

50 years of Tomahawks would accomplish nothing - Clinton proved that in Afghanistan.

Wrong.  The destruction of targets in Afghanistan set the terrorists back by several years.  In fact, surgical strikes have often been used effectively - even Reagan used them against Libya, and other countries.  So have other presidents.

The specific problem in Afghanistan was the lack of follow-through.  After the Clinton adminisration commissioned a terrorism threat analysis report (of which Gary Hart was one co-sponsor) the Bush administration set it aside. Why?  Because they preferred to start over from scratch and let Dick Cheney do his own study.  A pointless, partisan exercise that lost the USA precious months that it could have used, preparing for terrorism.

More information for your education:

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/01/15/clinton/index_np.html

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/

Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.

Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.

So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

Those actions, we knew about. Others, we did not, until recently. Starting in 1998, for example, Clinton gave the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States.

As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped some 60 commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when Pakistan experienced a military coup and a new government took over.

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan.

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart.

Conclusion: Rohrbacher, Limbaugh, Gingrich are dead wrong when they blame Bill Clinton for September 11. Did Clinton get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive?” No, but he came close, several times -- long before tracking down terrorists became a national priority.

 

Haven't planned for? Do you own a TV?

Yes, I do.  And no one on that TV has presented a credible plan for post-war Iraq.  If you think they have, then post it.  Otherwise, you're wasting your time. Your sarcasm isn't working, and it's likely to backfire on you.

The rest of the world is not our concern.

That's the attitude that made us a terrorism target in the first place.

We'll prop 'em up with money - just like we always do. M

Except in cases where they aren't motivated by money, but by blind faith in a leader or a religion, such as AlQaeda or North Korea.  Then what will you do?

Oh, I forgot - "the rest of the world is not our concern." 

 

 

 

[GR8FUL]

With more than 25 years of mititary service I too am conflicted by our current situation. I think we will have to deal with Saddem sooner or later. Lest we forget Aldolf Hitler.

My $0.02 worth.

 

[Aurelius]

Panda, your arguments are valid but something tells me that quoting salon.com won't win you too many friends around here.

Just an observation.

 

[Red Panda]

That's why the extended quotation I gave comes from CNN, not Salon.

 

[Aurelius]

LOL, smart move!

 

[Blindfaith]

Good post Bear!

I read the opening sentence, and my stomach dropped.  I immediately thought, "oh man.....we went in!  What about the *cough* UN?"

And here it was Mr. Clinton all along.

Question:  Did Mr. Clinton go to the UN for a resolution at that time?  Serious question btw.

 

[Aurelius]

This is a very good question:

Question: Did Mr. Clinton go to the UN for a resolution at that time? Serious question btw.

First we have to remember that Desert Fox wasn't just the work of Mr Clinton. Mr Blair was also involved. The operation was a joint strike by US/UK forces. So the answer is "No, Mr Clinton and Mr Blair did not go to the UN for a resolution at that time."

Next we have to remember although no resolution was made at the time, this was only because no new resolution was required. And why? Because a pre-existing resolution was currently in force, which Hussein was proven to have breached. That resolution was #687.

Mr Blair referred to it specifically during the course of his official statement to the media on the night of the attack:

• 
  "Earlier today, I gave authority for U.K. forces to be deployed against Iraq.
  
  Operation Desert Fox was launched at 10 p.m. London time.
  
  There can be no greater responsibility upon a prime minister than to ask British servicemen to risk their lives for the sake of peace and stability in another part of the world and I feel that responsibility, tonight, profoundly.
  
  I spoke earlier today to Group Capt. Rich Jones, commander of British Forces in the Gulf.
  
  British involvement will be significant, and I thanked them for their bravery and their professionalism, and I wished them well in what we would be asking of them.
  
  This action could have been avoided. Since the Gulf War, the entire international community has worked to stop Saddam Hussein from keeping and developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and from continuing to threaten his neighbors.
  
  For the safety and stability of the region and the wider world, he cannot be allowed to do so. If he will not, through reason and diplomacy, abandon his weapons of mass destruction program, it must be degraded and diminished by military force.
  
  Over the past few years, we have engaged in endless diplomacy at every level and of every kind.
  
  But we must face facts. Saddam Hussein has no intention of abiding by the agreements he has made.
  
  U.N. resolution 687 bringing to an end the Gulf War made it a condition of the cease-fire both that Iraq destroy its weapons of mass destruction and agree to the monitoring of its obligation to destroy such weapons.
  
  Despite constant lies, prevarication and breaching of the agreed conditions, the weapons inspectors carried out their task, uncovering in the process vast evidence of weapons of mass destruction capability.
  
  In October last year, Saddam Hussein started to impede their work even more seriously than before. Months of negotiation followed. Finally faced with the threat of force, Saddam Hussein averted military action by entering into a binding memorandum of understanding with Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary General.
  
  He continued to obstruct. In August, he suspended cooperation with the U.N. inspectors. On October 30, he ended cooperation totally.
  
  He resisted all appeals to come back into compliance with the agreements he made. Quite the contrary. He used the time for both further prevarication and for the dispersal of his military capability.
  
  As you know, on November 14, I issued the authority to strike against Iraq as part of a joint U.S.-U.K. operation.
  
  At the last moment, aware that he was about to be attacked, Saddam offered full, unconditional unrestricted cooperation with UNSCOM.
  
  We called off the attack. We made that last extra effort to avert force.
  
  The inspectors went back to work. We said at the time that we would hold Saddam to his word and that should he break his word once more there would be no warnings, no wranglings, no last-minute negotiations.
  
  Richard Butler, the head of the U.N. Special Commission, promised his report on Iraqi cooperation within a month. It came out last night, on time, as scheduled. It is damning. It is a catalog of obstruction. It shows quite clearly, one more time, that Saddam has no intention whatsoever of keeping his word. He is a serial breaker of promises.
  
  And the reason for his obstruction is also clear: It is his desire to develop these weapons of mass destruction.
  
  He has not for one instant yielded up to that malign intent. The threat is now, and it is threat to his neighbors, to his people and to the security of the world.
  
  If he is not stopped now, the consequences to our future peace are real and fundamental. We cannot responsibly allow that to happen.
  
  Let me remind you: Since 1991, the inspectors destroyed or rendered harmless 48 Scud missiles, 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical weapons agents, 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals and the Al Hakam biological weapons factory destroyed in 1996.
  
  However, over 30,000 chemical weapons warheads and 4,000 ton of precursor chemicals remain unaccounted for.
  
  The U.N. and the world community has shown by the resolution which has passed calling for unconditional cooperation with the weapons inspectors that it fully knows the seriousness of the threat he poses. Following the Butler report, after more than a year of obstruction and a catalog of obstruction, we have no option but to act.
  
  Our objectives in this military action are clear: To degrade his capability to build and use weapons of mass destruction. To diminish the military threat he poses to his neighbors.
  
  The targets chosen, therefore, are targets connected with his military capability, his weapons of mass destruction capacity and his ability to threaten his neighbors.
  
  We are taking every possible care to avoid civilian casualties.
  
  I cannot, for obvious reasons, go into operational details, but I do want to say one further thing.
  
  Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. It never has been. The whole world should know we have allowed Saddam to sell oil to buy as much food and medicine for the Iraqi people as necessary.
  
  It is a lie for him to say otherwise. He could have fed and cared for his people, but he has chosen not to. Our quarrel is with him alone and the evil regime he represents.
  
  There is no realistic alternative to military force. We are taking military action with real regret, but also with real determination. We have exhausted all other avenues. We act because we must."

There are two essential differences between this scenario and the one which now faces us:

1. Desert Fox was able to proceed because conclusive, objective, undeniable proof of Hussein's military arsenal was presented by the weapons inspectors. This included the identification of manufacturing plants devoted to the production of WMD - plants which were subsequently destroyed in the Desert Fox offensive. By contrast, the case for the current US/UK/Iraq war has yet to be vindicated
   
2. Desert Fox was a tactical strike, not a full-scale war (as is currently being suggested.) There was no invasion of Iraq. And why? Because there was no need for it.

 

[Red Panda]

Excellent summary, Aurelius. It's important that everyone realize that not all military actions against Iraq are identical. One has to peer a few layers deeper, to see if the surface similarities hold all the way down, or not.

 

[ern]

Yesterday at 10:32 PM Red Panda said this in Post #3 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674308#post674308)

(b) the rest of the world is against,
 

Actually, we have more countries on our side then we did during WWII.

 

[Aurelius]

Thanks Panda.

 

[Aurelius]

I suppose that this is technically true:

Actually, we have more countries on our side then we did during WWII.

Well, sort of. All you're really saying is that you have more countries prepared to fight alongside you than you did in WWII, which is true enough. But this was not due to the fact that fewer nations were willing to join your side - it was due to the fact that you were joining a war which had already begun two years ago. So in fact it is only Britain who is now in a position to say "We have more countries on our side than we did during WWII", because it was Britain who led the offensive against Germany and her allies.

Remember that WWII was all about the Allied forces liberating Europe (which had already fought to the best of her ability, but was overrun despite this) and pacifying Asian resistance in the Pacific theatre. It was about Britain calling on her allies to support her against Germany and her allies. It wasn't a question of "Who was on America's side"", but rather "Who was on Britain's side?"

And who was on Britain's side? Well, Europe had fought until she was no longer in a position to fight, which didn't leave too many allies for Britain. But she did have a number of allies who were ready to heed her call. The "young lions" of the Commonwealth came immediately to her assistance, while the Americans joined in a bit later on. For Britain, at least, WWII began as a defensive war and gradually evolved into an offensive as she slowly gained ascendency (with the help of her allies.)

The proposed war on Iraq is obviously nothing like this. The current situation has America, Britain and Australia preparing for a war that America is prepared to start, but almost nobody else wants to join. In WWII, people couldn't join Britain's side because they simply weren't in a position to do so. Today, they are in a position to do so, but they simply can't see any justification for it.

 

[MichaelFJF]

 http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/25/sprj.irq.after/index.html

 

The administration has been owrking for months on a plan to help after the war. Anyone who assumes they haven't just because it's not publicized just isn't paying attention. Remember, we are dealing with a press that slants things just abit. Is it a perfect plan? Of course not. Will there be problems? Sure. We have NO plan? I think not.

I'll worry about my own education thank you. Salon.com - LOL - good source. Can I use WND?

 

[Aurelius]

Your link doesn't work. If the administration has a plan, I'd sure like to know what it is. The big question will be "Who have they chosen to replace Hussein?" That's the one I'm waiting to hear.

Also, I have seen articles from both sides of the political fence at salon.com, but never at WND.

 

[Morat]

A general. At least for the first two years. Military occupation.

 

[Red Panda]

Today at 12:35 PM ern said this in Post #14

Actually, we have more countries on our side then we did during WWII.

No.  Even though many countries didn't officially send troops or supplies, the list of countries that backed the Allies in WW2 was much larger than it is now.