| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
 Posted - 02/05/2003 : 12:45:40
|
| I am of the opinion, after watching Secretary of State Colin Powel's address to the United Nations this morning, that we will be in possesion of Baghdad before the end of the month. I was just wondering what everyone else was thinking on this subject. It looks like there may be some ice storms over the weekend, maybe we can all go to work and stop thinking about these things for a while. |
|
|
Dadx9
USA
143 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 15:12:12
|
Kile,
I have been watching the United Nations proceedings with my wife and 5 of 9 kids still left at home.
I believe you may be right in your assumption of the U.S. buying land in Baghdad. Looks like it could be a fire sale.
I wish I were smart enough to know what the best answers are. I am praying that those who make those decisons will seek wisdom. Not political correctness or watch the polls, but wisdom. The hardest part is listening to those who listen to Sec. Powell and will now tell us what he said.
Let's all get ready to do what we do best. Adjust claims. I pray that we will all seek wisdom for things we do.
|
Don
"To be held in the heart of a friend is to be a king."
Bruce Cockburn |
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 09:45:28
|
Here's something else to think about. Why are France and Germany so dead set against the US plan to use military force to enforce the UN resolutions when almost all of Europe is behind us? I think back to 1987. The USS Stark on patrol in the Persian Gulf to keep the shipping lanes open is suddenly struck by 2 French made Exocet missiles which were "accidentaly" fired by a French made Iraqi Mirage fighter.
Shortly after the Gulf war parts for a 200 ft. long super gun, capable of hitting targets all over the Persian Gulf region are intercepte in route to Iraq, designed and engineered by a German company.
Is it possible that France and Germany do not wish for us to find what Iraq is hiding because they are the ones who sold it to him in the first place? |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 10:24:59
|
You made some valid points Kile.
However, I absorbed an interesting commentary on this issue yesterday. Some 'specialist' on foreign affairs was commenting that the "Old Europe" - as he characterized France & Germany, much to their immediate expressed anger - were reverting back to their "Policy of Appeasement", a foreign policy that has been in existence for over 100 years. This 'appeasement' attitude is well documented regarding the results of same, in that region from 1915 to 1945.
The short definition of that policy is, 'give a little and the problem will go away'. Perhaps the leaders of those countries, and their advisors, being born within that period mentioned, have been indocrinated with that policy.
It does seem shocking that those two countries, would entertain such a policy between them. France, 'gave a little', and Germany didn't go away; but took it all. |
|
|
|
ckleisch
USA
46 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 15:06:10
|
I have mixed emotions on the subject because as a Boy Scout Scoutmaster I have three boys over there one of which is an Eagle Scout and just finished Special Forces training and now is in Bahrain. Although they are gunho their moms are in a state of panic.So if were goin to do it lets get it done.
As to the subject of the French they truly dont like Americans in Paris and within their government. People in the countryside still have memories of WW2 and are generally thankful to americans. However, the French have been supplying the Iraqis for years and French firms have been instrumental in supplying the Iraq army in the past. Big business for them
In addition, can anyone remember a war they won on their own since Napoleon. Besides how much discipline can their army have when a drill sargent yells "Attentione"(fem. sounding) to get their attention.
As to the germans they have been burned in two wars and lost half their territory and are very sensative about their people fighting elsewhere.
Both, countries feel the USA is overbearing and they would like to see us sweat and stumble abit as it weakens us and strengthens them politically in their European Union. Standing up to us now is like the teenager talking back to their parent. Thank you for giving us birth but we want to grow up now. So much thanks for the Marshall-Plan and the Berlin Airlift. Guess we ran over to many fences and crops while German children watched war games to protect the Fulda gap from a Russian invasion that never came. Now the are all grown up and can vote the socialist ticket |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 17:26:06
|
| The French will join, but only after they get a major consession from the US. The super gun was designed by a canadian General Bull who mas murdered for his work and much was deigned and built in England. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 18:22:23
|
| Thanks for the info, Mark. I have been trying to find more info on the super gun as well as other German contributions to the Iraqi war machine since 1991. Did you get that info about the gun from memory or is there an article you can point me to? I really need some work, don't I? |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 08:42:24
|
Maybe the French want secrets to the VTOL Plane so they can sell them around the world to every Sadam who pops up. They got their pantys in a wad because we shared it with England. England shared and worked with Lockheed on it.
France has got to side with our enemies because thats what keeps their economy going. Arms are their most important product since they drink up all the wine. Since the grape vines got a blight and they had to get some more blight resistant from California, they don't brag on it any more. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 09:02:11
|
| Cannot remember the channel but always have the set on in the background when I am on the road. Was a article about General Bull, I got on the net and did some reading. The show suggested that the Americans and the British were not opposed to the gun, but the Isralis were upset. He might have been killed by them, or possibley by Sadam's people. Seems to me he was killed in Amsterdam. Was he a visionary or a mad man? He belongs to the Von Braun school of science (once the rockets go up I don't care where they come down, that not my department--from a song by Tom Lehr). They did test a model and it would have worked. Try typing "Bull super gun. I have one site http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm. Also if you want to look at super weapons the canuks also invented a war plane in the late 50's that would still be competitive today. It was cancels for some obscure political reason, maybe Clayton knows why. It was called the Avro Arrow. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 09:06:41
|
Kile, I think Secretary Powell made a compelling case for Iraq's disarmament even if by force, and generally speaking, I think President Bush has arisen to the task of a wartime leader and exemplary President (which to be honest, was a pleasant surprise).
Let's just hope that, unlike his Father, in his focus and fervor with Iraq, that President Bush doesn't forget the battles required at home, with a dangerously failing economy.
Having said all of that, my personal opinion is that war should be the last, not first resort.
While we cannot fail to act when action is required, nor can we succumb to our fears, I do think a US led war with Baghdad is likely to activate sleeper cells of Al Quida throughout the world with corresponding acts of barbaric terror that we likely have not forseen nor seen before. As the President has said, the war against terror may not be won in our lifetimes, and those anticipating a quick fix, are likely to be sadly mistaken.
The power vacuum of a post-Saddam Iraq will require a generational occupancy by US and free world forces to instill and institute stablity in this sensitive yet vital part of the world.
My worst nightmare scenario is that the North Koreans may try something incredibly stupid while we are engaged in an Iraqi conflict. North Korea has not received the attention and action which it deserves, and in my humble opinion, presents the much greater challenge for world peace and omimnous threat for susceptibility for events out of control leading to an unintended WWIII.
I do wonder what the American public reaction may be should Iraq's use of chemical/biological weapons on our troops causes 50,000 deaths to US military forces. And I wonder at what point Israel will enter the fray with a nuclear weapon response should an Iraqi scud missle kill hundreds if not thousands of Israelis through delivery of those same chemical/biological agents upon it's citizens, and what impact that will have on the Arab world, and the larger world in which we live.
We live in a dangerous new world of asymmetrical non-traditional warfare made more dangerous post 911 and I pray that God will protect those who are out there protecting us, and grant wisdom to those chosen to lead.
I don't think this is going to be as easy as many see, nor do I think the costs will be small measured in blood. And I think few realize the turmoil and reactions we likely will see from the muslim and Arab world, and for generations to come.
We did not learn from the French mistake in Vietnam, and only history will reveal whether we learned from the Russian experience in Afghanistan. Yes, we have the superior battlefield technology and equipment, and our troops have no equals among the world's forces in training and skills. But never underestimate the will of the Arab mind nor the devious manner with which they conduct war. There are difficult and no doubt, trying days ahead.
I'll be behind our leaders and troops in whatever choices are required.
A war in the Middle East and a war with Iraq is not going to be a conventional war nor will it be a cakewalk.
A rattlesnake backed into a corner has nothing to lose nor any reason not to pull out all the stops. |
Edited by - JimF on 02/07/2003 10:16:54 |
|
|
|
Dadx9
USA
143 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 10:20:58
|
Jim,
You are certainly correct in your assessment, "this is no cakewalk". These times are certainly difficult, at best. With a son making preparations to enter the Naval Academy, Robyn and and I are watching with parental interest. As a student of history, many of us realize the support (or lack there of) from some European nations is not surprising. In fact, in light of recent U.S. history, we too subscribe to the philosphy that the Economy is the primary dictate of policy. How can we be judgemental to those in Europe who pay $5.00 - $6.00 a gallon for fuel and are very dependent on Iraqi oil? Are we as a country discovering a moral compass? The moral issues outweighing the econmic? I of course support the President's decision to pursue peace. I am praying for a real peaceful answer to the problems at hand. I am not hopeful. I am concerned. Being a man of faith. Following the Prince of Peace. There is an inward struggle. Let there be no doubt that I can support the President if war is the answer. I am willing to support any of my 6 sons and 3 daughters who decide to support the effort with their service. My prayers at the moment are focused on the Arab Summit taking place next week. Perhaps the other 22 Arab leaders (who have much to lose) will plead with Saddam to back down and resign.
In regards to North Korea. I think it is quite possible that their recent decisions are made as an agreement with Saddam. Although fiction, Tom Clancy has discussed this in previous writings.
Although sobering, I believe there is hope. All is not lost. |
Don
"To be held in the heart of a friend is to be a king."
Bruce Cockburn |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 10:30:43
|
The Avro Arrow, truly a 'machine' ahead of its time. It was a fighter aircraft, not a rocket or gun. The Prime Minister at the time was a great old guy - John Diefenbaker - but was falling out of favor, and he was a 'dove' by anyone's definition. Documentaries and movies have been made about the Avro, the last led by a great person from my hometown - Dan Ackroyd - aka the true Ghostbuster and Mr. Blues Brothers.
Once scientists figured out how good the Avro really was, regarding its potential as a fighter plane, old Dief didn't want to spend anymore money on it, nor did he want any other country to have it; he effectively cancelled any production of the aircraft.
If I recall correctly, Bull - who I wasn't aware had been a General - was killed by the Mosad. I believe there was a book published about it, but I don't know the title.
Jim's comments are a good reflection on all the things that must be considered in the coming weeks. I don't doubt an action in Iraq to eliminate Sadam could be swift and effective. However, the days and years after are the consequences that have to be measured.
First, I share the concern for what North Korea may do or give some indication of doing something severely confrontational, while a distant front is being successfully swept of evil. North Korea has a much more potent armed force, that could be surmounted successfully, but not with the ease that is suggested in Iraq. To confront conflict on these two distant fronts, to the extent required, has not been done since 1942 - 1945 - aka Japan and Europe. If the need for that arises, it will have a profound affect on the world in many ways.
Second, once the evil is swept from Iraq, the long - measured in many years - process starts of occupation, stabalization, redevelopment, and peacekeeping. This is ongoing in many fronts in the world to day, all in varying stages, and all with varying degrees of success; all very costly in terms of manpower and pure dollars.
However, it is clear, Sadam must be eliminated, and that piece of threat and evil eradicated from our societies. How that fits into the big picture worldwide, depends on a lot of information that we - the common folk - are not privy to. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
|
|
Dadx9
USA
143 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2003 : 08:50:14
|
Many are saying the embarassment factor is going to be huge. All the countires who are boycotting any advances of war may have also sold necessary parts to the Iraqi machine? I guess the world we live in, it all comes down to money. (sad)
I hope we (adjusters) can stay clear of that one. Lord knows we all need to make $$$ to survive. But I hope I never get to the place where money is the sole motivation for what I am willing to compromise on. |
Don
"To be held in the heart of a friend is to be a king."
Bruce Cockburn |
|
|
|
Justin
USA
137 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2003 : 11:30:21
|
Thought many of you would enjoy this email I received today. This could be the reason we really should not want France to ASSIST us in Iraq.
The Military History of France:
Gallic Wars:
Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2,000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian.
Hundred Years War:
Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars:
Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion – France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
Thirty Years War:
France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
War of Devolution:
Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
The Dutch War:
Tied.
War of the Augsburg League:
King William's War:
French and Indian War:
Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
War of the Spanish Succession:
Lost. The war also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
American Revolution:
In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome," and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
French Revolution:
Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
The Napoleonic Wars:
Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War:
Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
World War I:
Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II:
Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel song.
War in Indochina:
Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
Algerian Rebellion:
Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism:
France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?" but, rather, "How long until France collapses?"
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
War with Iraq, will we or won't we?
Forum Locked
