WAR IN 72 HOURS... TIME FOR UNITY... WHATEVER OUR DIFFERENCES...
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
Quote from rs7:
There is just no way IMO we really need to wage a big war, launch a major invasion to get rid of the cancer that is Saddam Hussein.
I just can't help but think a quick surgical strike could have achieved the same results. With just a small handful of elite commandos.
Yes, I understand it would not have been easy. Few things are. I just think it could have been done with the proper intelligence and the proper planning. And without even talking about it...just go and do it. Take a page from the Israeli playbook.
Peace,
rs7
RS7, the objective is not solely to take out Saddam. It is to dismantle the entire apparatus and infrastructure that is his regime, which entails removing thousands of the officers (especially in the Republican Guard), the secret police, the WMD R&D organization, the Ba'ath party members, etc, etc.
Simply removing him and his sadistic progeny would only create a power vacuum, so who knows what general would rise to the heap? The aforementioned infrastructure and organizations would remain largely intact, utilized in full by the next psycho. Civil war would almost be a certainty. The only option is for us to, well, play not only the invader but the policeman as well.
Besides, Saddam's ability to evade and deceive is legendary. You know this. All the technowhiz stuff we employ is useless without knowing where the guy is. He trusts only a few key people, moves around constantly, has doubles, blah, blah, blah. I think you vastly overestimate our HUMINT capability over there.
The hard part of this entire venture is going to be the rebuilding process post-war, the attempt to instill democracy into a country that has never known it. Germany and Japan were successes largely because the people were, for the most part, well-educated, technically proficient, and did not have centuries of ethnic hatreds dividing them.
This is not going to be easy nor quick.
With respect,
Hapa
Quote from hapaboy:
RS7, the objective is not solely to take out Saddam. It is to dismantle the entire apparatus and infrastructure that is his regime, which entails removing thousands of the officers (especially in the Republican Guard), the secret police, the WMD R&D organization, the Ba'ath party members, etc, etc.
Simply removing him and his sadistic progeny would only create a power vacuum, so who knows what general would rise to the heap? The aforementioned infrastructure and organizations would remain largely intact, utilized in full by the next psycho. Civil war would almost be a certainty. The only option is for us to, well, play not only the invader but the policeman as well.
Besides, Saddam's ability to evade and deceive is legendary. You know this. All the technowhiz stuff we employ is useless without knowing where the guy is. He trusts only a few key people, moves around constantly, has doubles, blah, blah, blah. I think you vastly overestimate our HUMINT capability over there.
The hard part of this entire venture is going to be the rebuilding process post-war, the attempt to instill democracy into a country that has never known it. Germany and Japan were successes largely because the people were, for the most part, well-educated, technically proficient, and did not have centuries of ethnic hatreds dividing them.
This is not going to be easy nor quick.
With respect,
Hapa
The goal is "nation building" which Bush said he was not in favor of during his run for the presidency.
Go to hell Mo.... go back to your cave dude...
Nation building was not stated in the goals of fighting the war on terrorism, until very recently in the case of Iraq and the focus on regime change. The first focus was the elimination of WMD, now the focus is on regime change. It is one of the reasons that the world is reacting so strongly to Bush. Nation building is imperialism in action. That is much different than working to protect our national security through the conventional and accepted methods of our republic.
The thought that we have to convert all societies to our democratic way of thinking in order to achieve our own national security is not reasonable, nor will it ever be successful.
Nation building is not necessary to fight the war on terrorism.
If the journalists had any balls, they would ask Bush why he has reversed his position on nation building.
It is fine to reverse a position, just say that you done so and give your reasons so the electorate can decide if they approve come next election.
To deny that we are nation building in Iraq is an insult to the common sense of any observer, citizen, or voter.
Bush has been pretty steady all along and as far as 'nation building' i think he's just responding to the lib left who said he's going to bomb, take the oil and run....I think he's just giving rheteric to appease....which is why he went to the UN in the first place....he gave it a chance but his mind was set.
Call it what you will - nation building, imperialism, whatever. The bottom line is that to eliminate the threat SH poses with his WMD, he must be removed from power and the entire system he rules over along with it. That system must be replaced with another system of a type that will afford us and the world as much security as possible and help the Iraqi people as much as possible.
What alternative do you propose? What "conventional and acceptable methods of our republic" would you employ in this situation?