While I agree somewhat with what was said, I have to think that inaction poses many of the same risks if not more. How long are we to subject our fighting men and women to the dangers of patrolling a UN imposed no-fly zone. The fact that we have not lost more personnel in this pursuit, only shows the professionalism and quality of the individuals who make up our military ranks. Some would say it is our superior technology, which indeed plays a part. But I would say ones perspective would change looking out a windscreen at a SAM or radar controlled AAA throwing 30mm pills at you in earnest. Yea, you want to get away, but you have to know how and how to retaliate. Another point, if I’m not mistaken, Somalia was an UN action as well – seems our buddies over there were the French and the Pakistanis, but the French left shortly after our arrival, reminiscent of a little excursion we had over in southeast Asia about 30+ years ago. Anyway, I digress.
No, I think Sadam must go. He has killed well over a million of his own people “for security purposes”, not to mention those who died during the 8 year war with Iran or during his little excursion south to try to steal his neighbors oil. Oh, by the way, it’s ok for him to steal oil - he is an Arab. Check the site [url=http://www.fas.org]http://www.fas.org[/url] for a rundown on some of this mans military tactics and his weapons of choice. Interesting that he is the only world leader that has actually developed and used chemical and biological weapons in an offensive mode (WW1 excluded but it can be argued that the use was defensive – depending upon which way the wind was blowing). The man condones both genocide and fratricide. This guy is Pol Pot with a turban. 60 plus years ago we went after a fella with similar attributes, but it took the sacrifice of a large number of Navy personnel to get us up and moving on that one as well. No one wanted war then and no one wants war, but what other alternatives are there? Are we waiting for a repeat, because history will.
I think that there is also another agenda here that is largely overlooked. Why do terrorist exist and what drives these individuals into becoming one. The “standard answer” from our well informed press is the Israel/Palestinian conflict, but I don’t completely buy into it - maybe at first, but not now. What drives Saudi Arabians, or for that matter, individuals from other countries in that region to pick up arms, not to defend their own countries as part of a legitimate armed force, but for some other entities cause that is not a direct threat to their rice bowl, loved ones, or quality of life? Ideology? No, I think the answer is loss of hope and self esteem. You take a kid, raise him in what could arguably be one of the wealthiest nations in the world per capita (of course only a few have the wealth and power), and when he comes of age, you send him west for educational purposes. He does well, excels in school, and learns all aspects of western society. Upon his return home, what are his prospects? He lives under a monarchy (or dictatorship) and if he is not part of the royal family or elite, his chances of bettering himself are extremely limited. He is bored, angry, and frustrated. Just as many people all over the world do under those circumstances, he turns to religion. Unfortunately, his religion labels us “Crusaders” and the “Great Evil”. Where did that come from? We have some serious problems at home but I don’t think either of these two names are fitting or justified. We tend to separate the political apparatus from the religious apparatus over here. Not many others do. With nothing else to do and no prospects of improving his life or his status, he goes the direction of least resistance and maximum status. I have to think that those dictatorships (monarchies) support these actions. After all, they are the supreme power over their own people. If they wanted to stop extremist teachings and preach “peace & love”, they could.
This conflict is not solely about Sadam, it is about the establishment democracy in the midst of the richest dictatorships and monarchies in the world – and it has them scared shitless. If successful, others may follow – hopefully not by the same means but through peaceful processes. If john q public sees and starts to understand, opps – there goes the neighborhood and the Kings have to start washing Mercedes for a living. In short, it’s about giving their youth prospects of something to do with their lives other than trying to blow up members of the Great Evil society. You can’t fight terrorism by taking out the known terrorist. For every one you identify and defeat, two more will rise who are unidentified. You have to try to break the cycle up front, and get those who would do evil to our society to understand that we don’t mean them ill will – we would like for them to be as fortunate as we are. We only fight as a last resort. I think all of our options are played out – not necessarily with respect to Iraq, but with respect to terrorism. Ask the Kurds or the Shia if Sadam is a terrorist and, while not in the classic definition of the term, I think you will get a resounding yes. Ask yourself why the UN has had us flying over northern and southern Iraq for the last twelve years. Yes, it’s about Sadam, but it’s also about hearts and minds. My opinion is that if we don’t start soon, WMD terrorist acts are not a question of if, they are a question of when. It may already be too late. Non-proliferation is a guise and an unobtainable goal. I pray for our service personnel, the English, and the innocent Iraqi. I think this war is/was inevitable, regardless of who is in office at present. If this war serves to establish democracy in the region as well as ousting Sadam, so be it. If the common folk of their neighboring countries look at the end product and realize they no longer have to be serfs, but decide to better themselves, maybe we will see the ultimate demise of organized terrorism.
Just my two cents. I’m probably wrong anyway, but that’s where I stand.
Well, this is kind of long winded.
While I agree somewhat with what was said, I have to think that inaction poses many of the same risks if not more. How long are we to subject our fighting men and women to the dangers of patrolling a UN imposed no-fly zone. The fact that we have not lost more personnel in this pursuit, only shows the professionalism and quality of the individuals who make up our military ranks. Some would say it is our superior technology, which indeed plays a part. But I would say ones perspective would change looking out a windscreen at a SAM or radar controlled AAA throwing 30mm pills at you in earnest. Yea, you want to get away, but you have to know how and how to retaliate. Another point, if I’m not mistaken, Somalia was an UN action as well – seems our buddies over there were the French and the Pakistanis, but the French left shortly after our arrival, reminiscent of a little excursion we had over in southeast Asia about 30+ years ago. Anyway, I digress.
No, I think Sadam must go. He has killed well over a million of his own people “for security purposes”, not to mention those who died during the 8 year war with Iran or during his little excursion south to try to steal his neighbors oil. Oh, by the way, it’s ok for him to steal oil - he is an Arab. Check the site [url=http://www.fas.org]http://www.fas.org[/url] for a rundown on some of this mans military tactics and his weapons of choice. Interesting that he is the only world leader that has actually developed and used chemical and biological weapons in an offensive mode (WW1 excluded but it can be argued that the use was defensive – depending upon which way the wind was blowing). The man condones both genocide and fratricide. This guy is Pol Pot with a turban. 60 plus years ago we went after a fella with similar attributes, but it took the sacrifice of a large number of Navy personnel to get us up and moving on that one as well. No one wanted war then and no one wants war, but what other alternatives are there? Are we waiting for a repeat, because history will.
I think that there is also another agenda here that is largely overlooked. Why do terrorist exist and what drives these individuals into becoming one. The “standard answer” from our well informed press is the Israel/Palestinian conflict, but I don’t completely buy into it - maybe at first, but not now. What drives Saudi Arabians, or for that matter, individuals from other countries in that region to pick up arms, not to defend their own countries as part of a legitimate armed force, but for some other entities cause that is not a direct threat to their rice bowl, loved ones, or quality of life? Ideology? No, I think the answer is loss of hope and self esteem. You take a kid, raise him in what could arguably be one of the wealthiest nations in the world per capita (of course only a few have the wealth and power), and when he comes of age, you send him west for educational purposes. He does well, excels in school, and learns all aspects of western society. Upon his return home, what are his prospects? He lives under a monarchy (or dictatorship) and if he is not part of the royal family or elite, his chances of bettering himself are extremely limited. He is bored, angry, and frustrated. Just as many people all over the world do under those circumstances, he turns to religion. Unfortunately, his religion labels us “Crusaders” and the “Great Evil”. Where did that come from? We have some serious problems at home but I don’t think either of these two names are fitting or justified. We tend to separate the political apparatus from the religious apparatus over here. Not many others do. With nothing else to do and no prospects of improving his life or his status, he goes the direction of least resistance and maximum status. I have to think that those dictatorships (monarchies) support these actions. After all, they are the supreme power over their own people. If they wanted to stop extremist teachings and preach “peace & love”, they could.
This conflict is not solely about Sadam, it is about the establishment democracy in the midst of the richest dictatorships and monarchies in the world – and it has them scared shitless. If successful, others may follow – hopefully not by the same means but through peaceful processes. If john q public sees and starts to understand, opps – there goes the neighborhood and the Kings have to start washing Mercedes for a living. In short, it’s about giving their youth prospects of something to do with their lives other than trying to blow up members of the Great Evil society. You can’t fight terrorism by taking out the known terrorist. For every one you identify and defeat, two more will rise who are unidentified. You have to try to break the cycle up front, and get those who would do evil to our society to understand that we don’t mean them ill will – we would like for them to be as fortunate as we are. We only fight as a last resort. I think all of our options are played out – not necessarily with respect to Iraq, but with respect to terrorism. Ask the Kurds or the Shia if Sadam is a terrorist and, while not in the classic definition of the term, I think you will get a resounding yes. Ask yourself why the UN has had us flying over northern and southern Iraq for the last twelve years. Yes, it’s about Sadam, but it’s also about hearts and minds. My opinion is that if we don’t start soon, WMD terrorist acts are not a question of if, they are a question of when. It may already be too late. Non-proliferation is a guise and an unobtainable goal. I pray for our service personnel, the English, and the innocent Iraqi. I think this war is/was inevitable, regardless of who is in office at present. If this war serves to establish democracy in the region as well as ousting Sadam, so be it. If the common folk of their neighboring countries look at the end product and realize they no longer have to be serfs, but decide to better themselves, maybe we will see the ultimate demise of organized terrorism.
Just my two cents. I’m probably wrong anyway, but that’s where I stand.
I’m just a rambling man.
Post a comment