SwiftVets.com

[Paul]

"The Mullahs of Iran can still muster suicide squads bur there's enough Irani's who can remember a better time and the signs of unrest grow. Containment seems more efficacious than attack.
North Korea is a thinly veiled stalking horse for the PRC. . . ."

Well, this or variations of it has been standard fair for the past couple years. . . however, even this contradicts our own State Department, the histories of North Korea. It does nothing to advance the soundness of the argument for invading Iraq on the basis of the position made for doing so or to help this nation.

In Fact, if this is true, then it was stupid in the first place for anyone in our government, let alone a President of the United States in a State of the Union Address, state publicly that Iran and North Korea are 2 of 3 nations that comprise an "Axis of Evil" to be resisted and which other nations need to declare themselves either 'for or against.'

Much better to follow the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' approach in such instances, especially when it's all so contradictory even of the reasons given for invading weakend and pathetic Iraq.

Anyway, we all watch the news, read the papers, whatever. . . . The talking heads neo-cons and their associates have been stating this self-contradictory nonsense for over two years now . . . Who in the world could not have repeated this????

Hey, anyone around the world for that matter. It’s nonsense and a contradiction to our own nation’s official government position on Iran. All the worse that so many around the world are familiar with this rationalization or variations of it. . .

As to “memories” in the “corner of Iranian minds”, then there were by far more Iranians would could “remember better times” in 1979. I went through A school with some of them when Great Lakes was crawling with Iranian sailors the year prior. So what? The most common variation I've heard is the 'disatisfaction of the youth.'

That rationalization isn't impressive either. For one it needs to be demonstrated and for two the 'youth' are going to have no more influence on Iranian government policies resulting in support of international terrorism that Iran gives then the 'youth' and the rest of us average peons in the United States are able to exert on our own nation's immigration policies that over 80% of Americans disagree with but that are proceeding just the same. . .

This rubbish about Iran is a stupid basis for national policy, especially when its stated openly to the whole world!

As a nation, Iran is listed as the Number One supporter of International Terrorism (not merely suicide squads sent out by the “Mullahs of Iran” alone) IN THE WORLD in 2002. Quite consistent with Iran’s history right back to 1979.

Iran was not contained in 2002. It’s not contained now.
Iraq was FAR MORE contained than Iran in 2002 or since.

And no self-contradictory neo-con propaganda is going to change this.

I'm a peon commenting in a small thread on a small forum, only one amopng literally tens of thousands on the net. I only point out that this whole self-contradicting mess has been unsound .

It's those who have declared war against us and been acting on those declarations who are the most dangerous to the United States and who our nation's efforts should be focused upon hunting down and annihilating. It's the talented and highest educated among the terrorists who threaten us most. Probably the smallest pool.

But I don't expect to see it anytime soon. . .
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"Force levels could be higher but we've the smallest military since 1940 and that's a domestic political issue that can't be changed with the likes of Kerry and the Great Society entitlement culture. If our force levels are inadequate how can you than argue we should be after bigger enemies?"

Then the US should never have invaded Iraq is invading Iraq was 'biting off more than we could chew.'

Just to be clear. I make no argument whatsoever about being after bigger enemies. Quite the opposite.

We should be taking such as the PRC quite seriously as a rival and competitor and as a possible future enemy. Don't read my advocating for invasion of the PRC or North Korea. That would have been even stupider than the stupid move of invading Iraq.

I point out the obvious self-contradictory nonsense and the unsoundness of the whole enterprise and 'principles' it's all been based on right back to 2002. In 2002 I mostly questioned. Anyway, I believe that the bad consequences of this are going to come back to bite us even worse in the future.

The excuses here, and I would also add the burden of meeting the host of committments to UN operaions as part of the manning level problems, do not excuse leaving 140, 000 Americans in Iraq in the midst of growing insurgencies and the growing chaos that is the result of the US invasion cutting loose all of the various elements that were previously contained by the Despot Saddam. This is why the "I support our troops" bumper stickers signify nothing.

Americans used to excel at the recognition that a major aspect in conducting a successful war so as to win is ensuring adequate logistical depth through materiel and manning. Too many today babble stupidly about the 'superiority' of a past enemy who lost but who 'would have won' if only they'd had our resources.

It is a rank amateur or an idiot's view to warfare and to the basic elements necessary to conducting a successful war so as to win.

Nothing being witnessed in Iraq today was not predictable. If it had not been considered prior to the invasion, and the overoptimistic nonsense was actually believed by the planners and our government leaders themselves (which from all that I can see, I do believe was the case), then, again, this effort has been grossly inept and inexcusable from the start. The US should never have invaded Iran.

Further, if invading Iraq was biting off more than can be chewed, then the neo-cons sure better drop the nonsense propaganda about imposing democracy upon other nations or imposing a reform on other people’s religion (numbering over 1 Billion individuals) throughout the whole of the Islamic world.

Another reason I point out the PRC diplomatic ties and endeavors throughout the Islamic world, Asia and Africa. The ENTIRE Islamic world cannot be targeted because eventually the PRC would be drawn in. It would not tolerate us going that far. So if we're not prepared to take it on. Then the nonsense advocacy against the non-existent 'IsalmoFascist threat' to the world better be toned back.

I agree that the nation has a Great Society Entitlement Culture. And Americans increasingly have a profoundly unrealistic impractical mindset where government and costs are concerned among the average individual.

Add the majority of the politicians in the new Republican Party to the usual contributors throughout the Democratic. The most easily defended charge made by the Democrats today against present-day Republicans, especially during the past four years, is that the Republican Party is ‘radically conservative’ and guilty of slashing social spending. Please, the new ‘Great Society Republicans’ have been mind boggling in their rush to expand the federal government bureaucracy, dole out entitlement programs to one and all, pursue internationalist agendas, submit our trade policies to the dictates of the Europeans via the WTO in Europe, to the Chinese via the Fast Track in the western Pacific and Asia, and open up the whole of the Americas to both via the extension of a NAFTA-like Free Trade zone through all of the Americas. . . The immigration and trade policies are themselves blatantly self-contradictory to many claims made regarding the 'world terrorist threat.' Expanding the national debt of an already Deptor nation is dangerous given the enemies that we do have, and limiting to our ability to deal with any others who would make themselves our enemies, even if it wern't also stupid for a host of other reasons. . .

Anyway, there's no excuse for this whatsoever. It's a disgrace. There's no leadership worthy of the titlte if our 'leaders' can't mobilize this nation in support of the Americans we've placed in Iraq and against the enemies who have attacked since 1993.

This is all in the context of the third year after an attack within our nation that was more devastating in its destructiveness and loss of life than Pearl Harbor 1941. It shook the economy, of the US and impacted the economy around the world. It took 19 men using readily available, even mundane, implements at an estimated cost of a few hundred thousand dollars cost, to accomplish.

We have some SERIOUSLY dangerous enemies. And they’re not the average rabble suicide bomber found in endless supply on the West Bank.
_________________
Paul

[rb325th]

Moderator Note: This topic of discussion is venturing far from the Purpose of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Sites Intention. The Political Rhetoric here is becoming strong and counterproductive to the intention of the Forums here.
This is a Bi-Partisan Site with one intention only, to bring forth the Truth about John Kerry. Please keep tone down the political rhetoric, or find another Site where these discussions are taking place.
Thankyou in advance for your cooperation.

[mikencove]

The argument that we invaded Iraq to secure our oil supply is based on ignorance. We controlled Kuwait, which has almost as much oil as Iraq. We didn't need to invade because we already had the opportunity to control the world oil market.
That is all there is to that argument.

[RStauch]

Paul,

With all due respect, we do disagree. I don't think we "kiss the ring" as we recognize a long-term friendship with France (who helped us during our War of Independence, remember), and as we seek to restore it. If we were telling France that we were sorry for trying to force them to recognize that deals with Saddam Hussein were ill-advised, then I might agree, but that is not what we are telling them. Similarly, trying to help North Korea put down their nuclear dreams without going to war with them is hardly "kow-towing" to them. Et Cetera.

Sorry to give your many comments such short shrift, but I am busy at work, especially preparing for the possibility that Ivan may hit here as early as Sunday night. Imagine, three big ones in two months! YIKES!
_________________
Richard Stauch
Ft. Myers, FL

[Rich]

Saddam didnt have a bad plan. He just went about it wrong. His invasion of Iran should have yeilded gains and concessions, possibly even total victory. But he never really understood modern war and his military was never able to sustain a combined arms offensive that would result in territorial gains and destruction of his enemy. Instead of a large armored force encircleing and cutting off an enemy army, and then destroying it. The Iraqis would moves a few miles and dig their tanks in. They were never able to use their superior firepower in a meaningful way and eventually allowed themselves to get bogged down in a war of attrition. Iran was Saddams first step, and he failed at it.

Next was his designs against his gulf arab brothers. First was Kuwait and his propoganda campaign designed to deter the western powers almost worked. Remember Teddy and Jesse sheiking "no blood for oil", and the great Kennedy and Jackson military minds both predicting a "6 mo ground war with 50,000 American casualties". He harnessed the softball world liberal media but he understimated George sr. If he could have consolidated Kuwait ,and paralyzed the rest of the world, the next one would be the Saudis. In one masterstroke he'd have control of over 50% of the worlds known oil reserves.

If he'd have beaten Iran to the bomb then they would have been attacked again. Luckily the Israelis bombed his "Frenchie" reactor at Osirik, if they hadnt Saddam would have had nukes by Gulf-1.

All in all it wasnt a bad plan. Saddam almost had his empire. Just imagine, next time your filling up your 12mtg SUV, if Saddam would have gained complete control of ME oil reserves? We'd be at his mercy, and it wouldnt matter if we went to other markets to buy oil. Saddams control of ME oil would also control the prices of the "other" oil producers. Economicaly it would have a catostraphic trickle down effect. Same thing with "the world economy". Our closets have clothes made in 27 different countries, our cars have parts made in 13, our computers 11...ect you get the picture! A meltdown in the economy of a region 1/2 across the world would have a meltdown effect on our own. With 30% unemployment, 2 mile gas lines at $8 a gallon, and savings evaporating into nothing, even the liberals would stop shreiking "no blood for oil".

And what was the point of making Saddam sign cease fire documents, and passing one UN resolution after another, if we werent going to make him abide by them? Sanctions werent going to work because he created his own underground economy to support his regime, and the UN oil for food program did nothing but make Him, his cronies, and foreign officials rich. The Iraqi people still suffered, their well being was irrelevant to him except to use the suffering as propoganda. Were we supposed to pass another UN resolution, only this time with the stipulation we really,really,really,really,really mean it?

Sorry to sound so long winded, but the history of Saddam Hussein is a history of those who understimated him or thought they were "containing" him. You dont "contain guys like Saddam Hussein! He even tried assasinating a former US president while he was also obstructing the UN inspectors, which he never stopped doing. I served in a hostile,terrorist Muslim country too, back in the late 70's, and I dont like seeing those kids over there either. But I believe the cause was just and Saddam had to go.

And the reasons for it are many, and transpired over many years......................thank you..................Rich
_________________
"Freedom" is never "free"

[SEABEE_JAG]

Paul,

You have to have been a POL specialist (Petroleum-Oil-Lubricants) or in the energy industry - 100% correct. BTW - one of the allegations against Shell is that they have "diverted corporate assets" to pay bribes to Filipino terrorists.

The Indonesian-Filipino oil is there.

My "energy" clients are in stationary generation equipment - no oil clients.
_________________
SeaBee JAG