Iraq on the Record

Ender said:
To make sure those weapons were out of his hands. Thats the justification of the invasion. Hope to God, those weapons have not found their way elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point about SHussein not complying with the treaty agreements and snubbing/blocking inspectors from certain sites for 10 years. More than enough time to move/sell them off don't you think? Isn't that one of the fears/suspicions about the Russians weapons grade nuc. material...
 
upnorthkyosa said:
Believe me, I would much rather believe that our current leaders ARE the public servents they pretend to be. Unfortuneately, there are far too many parellels between today and the late Roman Republic. For some interesting, and scary, research read about Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. The things they dealt with in their days are nearly analogous to what we are dealing with.

Upnorthkyosa
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer that history, natural and human civ., is a silly little line that goes up down and loops over itself many times as opposed to the nice straight as an arrow time line that we used in soc. studies classes and such, but PLEASE! Nearly analogous means that it isn't the same. Analogies taken too far can be frightening, but by there very nature are imperfect.

I can see parallels, certainly, but there are some huge differences too - beyond the bold fashion sense of the day :).

The Roman culture, not just the powers that be, saw nothing wrong with holocaustic destruction of a group that stood in their way. There was an obilisk (Washington monument in D.C. look alike) with engravings of Roman soldiers slaughtering non combatives: woman, children, elderly... as a monument to the successful campaigns in Western Europe/Germania...

I don't really forsee the US citizen waving flags and cheering at an unveiling of a monument that depicts the Me Lei Massacre....

Similarities yes, but there are VERY different foundational values that make up the framework of the cultures that you are comparing.
 
michaeledward said:
This arguement is not really the same. If I am not mistaken, Japan & Germany surrendered unconditionally in 1945. We were occupying powers. They had no opportunity to start massing troops because we were there.

In contrast, in 1991, when Bush told Schwartzkoppf to stop his advance, we ended up in a very different situation. While we were close by, we were not 'in-country'. When BHW Bush encouraged the *****e's to rise up and over-throw the Hussein government, Hussein was able to counter attack with helicopter gunships and destroy the upraising. During which time, Schwartzkoppf's troops were watching the battles, and were not ordered to stop them.

In hind-sight, there were several mistakes in this sequence of events; a) Bush ordered a halt too soon, Powell & Schwartzkopff wanted another day. b) The cease fire agreement allowed Hussein to keep, and fly, his helicopters, this allowed suppression of the uprising. c) Not assisting the *****e in the South, and the Kurds in the North when needed.

Anyhow ... there were very big differences between 1991 and 1945.

Thanks. Mike
Click to expand...

Agreed there are differences, but unconditional surrender just means that you are not arguing or negotiating terms. There are still terms though. I have already discussed the ten year refusal to cooperate or even honor those terms. Conditional or unconditional, terms are agreed upon.

As far as US troops and involvement, the military goals of the Gulf War were accomplished - Kuwait was liberated. Advancing into Iraq, at that time, would not have been within the objectives list, nor would it have helped the local/regional support of the international community let alone the US citizens/mother's of America. We were not set up, equipted or budgeted to push on. Look at the mess that is going on with trying to stabilize the country after SHussein has been overthrown. I am sure that the contingency specialists in the white house had sketched out something, but it is a hell of an operation to accomplish, as we are seeing. After such a long and involved campaign, it might look hypocritical to do so, but the idea that the local resistance would gain control of the local gov. a standard policy in the current day. It helps avoid the accusations of impirialism. Of course the sharp shooters who will find fault with any choice will say that we should have finished the job. If we had gone in, the same people would be the accusers of impirialism. Either way, I respect a person who will at least take the reins of leadership/decision making, it is better than doing nothing. Same thing with MA training, I do it and choose to use it if necessary as an alternative to doing nothing or having no letting other's fall victim to bullies/abusers. Judge me afterward, but I tried to make a difference.

Former POTUS Bush spoke at University at Buffalo after he was out of office and said during that speek that he could not morally justify risking American lives to chase one man... Right or wrong, he made a choice. The buffer was suppose to be SHussein's compliance with his treaty conditions.
 
loki09789 said:
As far as US troops and involvement, the military goals of the Gulf War were accomplished - Kuwait was liberated. Advancing into Iraq, at that time, would not have been within the objectives list, nor would it have helped the local/regional support of the international community let alone the US citizens/mother's of America. We were not set up, equipted or budgeted to push on. . . .
Former POTUS Bush spoke at University at Buffalo after he was out of office and said during that speek that he could not morally justify risking American lives to chase one man... Right or wrong, he made a choice. The buffer was suppose to be SHussein's compliance with his treaty conditions.
Click to expand...
I agree that Operation Desert Storm did not have in its objectives a march on Bagdhad. The coalition built by GHW Bush's administration was built around the premise of liberating Kuwait. I do not know if one of the objectives of the campaign would be that Iraq would no longer be able to threaten its neighbors or not, but it probably should have been, given the history with Iran.

But, it has been fairly widely reported that GHW Bush put the brakes on the Military commanders before they were ready to say their mission was completed. General Schwartzkopff has stated that discussions among himself, Chairman Powell, and President Bush indicated that all of the tactical objectives could be completed with an additional 24 to 48 hours, and that President Bush ordered them to end the hostilities at Midnight (approximately 6 hours later).

If the military had been given the extra time they requested, and if the terms of the cease fire prohibited the use of helicopter gunships, perhaps the *****e & Kurdish uprisings could have overthrown Hussein without risking American lives.

In general, I think Jefferson did a good thing by putting the civilian authorities in charge of the military. But it seems that both Presidents Bush, through their administrations, in appropriately exercised this command structure.

In my opinion, GHW Bush, should have given the military the time they requested to complete the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.
GW Bush (read Rumsfeld) should have given General Franks the 500,000 strong invasion force requested, which would have prevented the looting, and perhaps facilitated the 'after-action' establishment of peace and civil control.

Of course, this hind-sight is 20/20. It will be interesting to see how the historians write this chapter of American History, and how Clinton's role fits into it.

Either way, the statements made over the last two years by the current administration to build support for the invasion, are demonstrably inaccurate, according to the intelligence that was available to them.

See http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Mike
 
loki09789 said:
I am a firm believer that history, natural and human civ., is a silly little line that goes up down and loops over itself many times as opposed to the nice straight as an arrow time line that we used in soc. studies classes and such, but PLEASE! Nearly analogous means that it isn't the same. Analogies taken too far can be frightening, but by there very nature are imperfect.

I can see parallels, certainly, but there are some huge differences too - beyond the bold fashion sense of the day :).

The Roman culture, not just the powers that be, saw nothing wrong with holocaustic destruction of a group that stood in their way. There was an obilisk (Washington monument in D.C. look alike) with engravings of Roman soldiers slaughtering non combatives: woman, children, elderly... as a monument to the successful campaigns in Western Europe/Germania...

I don't really forsee the US citizen waving flags and cheering at an unveiling of a monument that depicts the Me Lei Massacre....

Similarities yes, but there are VERY different foundational values that make up the framework of the cultures that you are comparing.
Click to expand...

10,000 in Iraq. More on the way. How many more will it take to convince you? Have you ever read anything regarding the Brother's Gracchi? Perhaps we should list all of those killed by US sponsored dicators? Now THAT would holocaustal!

I don't make statements such as "nearly analogous" without some sort of information to back it up. The biggest difference is the scale. Pax Romana was involved in a world that was MUCH smaller then todays. This skewed much of the events of the day and it also accounts for my usage of "nearly analogous".

Pax Americana is following in the footsteps of the ancient late Roman republic. Some of the information that supports this...

1. Weathly landowners (precapitolists in roman days multinational corporations in ours) are consolidating ALL wealth leaving the majority with very little.
2. Economic dominion enforced with military activities.
3. Satallite nations set up militarily as part of the Empire. This was justified with the argument "we are showing them a better way of governing themselves...(analogous to democratizing) Has anyone ever read PNAC?
4. Social change suppressed through information control.
5. Social leaders who aspire to level the playing field are assassinated.
6. Success in politics depends upon financial backing
7. Do I really need to go on with this silly list? Perhaps it is your responsibility to read the rest...

Sometimes historical examples and analogies are silly and far fetched. This one is not. Read and learn. It follows that since our country was founded on many old Roman Republic laws that our country could suffer the same fate.

Who will be our Imperator?

upnorthkyosa
 
Oh wow, youre right!! How could I have missed that!! Man were in the worst trouble of our history!! Oh besides that Civil War thing....This @#!$ is nothing "new" what do you think people thought about Lincoln during his time?
 
upnorthkyosa said:
I don't make statements such as "nearly analogous" without some sort of information to back it up. The biggest difference is the scale. Pax Romana was involved in a world that was MUCH smaller then todays. This skewed much of the events of the day and it also accounts for my usage of "nearly analogous".
Click to expand...

That's funny, the scale argument didn't work for me, but it works for you?

Some other differences:

1. We don't have Caesars, we have VOTED POTUS who serve limited terms
2. We don't worship the POTUS as a living god, nor do we have a state religion
3. Bill of Rights/Constitution/System of Checks and Balances...
4. Roman military forces were funded privately by an aristocrat who could pony up the cash to outfit his forces. THerefore loyalty was first to Marcus Whoevericus first and the state second or even last. Our forces are STATE forces, not private and swear an oath of allegiance to defend the Constituion, not the Pres, or some other specific office/person.
5. We ALL have the right to vote, not just the landed, wealthy citizens.
6. OUr nation has public education that, at the very least teaches ALL citizens to read/think critically - not just the aristocratic/financial elite. This in itself is empowering because they can, even on an elementary level, follow the events and exercise a vote to make a difference.
7. Our nation is as much founded on Judeo/Christian values as it is Roman Republic construct. Like I said about the obilisk, we also don't parade prisoners of war, exotic animals into a public forum for execution/entertainment of the masses - it wouldn't be tolerated because the moral/ethical values are not the same as the Roman Empire.

I can admire the abilities and accomplishments of another Martial art and adopt/adapt the methods without absorbing the values. The modern military practice of standardized/manualed unit organization and record keeping is given credit to the Roman model - yet it is just a method, not the wholesale purchase of the culture. I like the Isshin Ryu punch structure and use it personally, but I don't study/adopt the entire system.

You could make analogies to any point in US history to any major civiliation at a specific point in history - even those with little or no contact with Roman culture: China, Japan, Aztecs, Early Egyptians, Nubians, Summerians... Besides which, there are those who could argue that the Roman and Greek models weren't fitting to the early American nation and they were influenced by the Iroqouis (Hodonoshonee) league of 5 nations - later made 6 with the addition of the Tuskarora. There is documentation to this affect in the local Reservation historical records, and even some texts (though I would have to dig to site them - working from memory here) that Ben Franklin proposed using the Iroqouis model.
 
michaeledward said:
I agree that Operation Desert Storm did not have in its objectives a march on Bagdhad. The coalition built by GHW Bush's administration was built around the premise of liberating Kuwait. I do not know if one of the objectives of the campaign would be that Iraq would no longer be able to threaten its neighbors or not, but it probably should have been, given the history with Iran.

Mike
Click to expand...

Colin Powell has publically stated that one of the objectives, other than the liberation of Kuwait, was to do enough estimated damage that it would take 10 years for him to retool/rebuild. That may have been the reason for the stop, along with others. I don't agree with all the rhetoric and public justification of the current Iraqi war, but it doesn't mean that there aren't damn good reasons to take this guy out.

Personally, I think if Bush had stayed with the more immediate threat/pubically supported operation of breaking the terrorist financial/structural support in Afg., it would have been easier to justify/explain the Iraqi operation when transmissions and Iraqi support/harboring of Al Q/Taliban fugitives would be evident. And, I really think it would/is happening - though that is personal opinion and not based on any concrete proof on my part. Just that old Sergeant's hunch work going on.

I remember chomping at the bit when we didn't go all the way, but again I don't have to live with these decisions and if you look at my Tolkein SIg, it says it all for me.
 
MartialTalk Admin Note:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.


Martial Talk Assistant Administrator
Rich Parsons
 
I dont think were having any "bad blood" here...we sort of look at it as Verbal sparring...at least thats how we laid it out at the beginning of the thread. Although I may be confusing this thread with another that this same crowd is debating...they seem like OK people to me (even for "bleeding heart liberals" ;) )
 
loki09789 said:
That's funny, the scale argument didn't work for me, but it works for you?

Some other differences:

1. We don't have Caesars, we have VOTED POTUS who serve limited terms
2. We don't worship the POTUS as a living god, nor do we have a state religion
3. Bill of Rights/Constitution/System of Checks and Balances...
4. Roman military forces were funded privately by an aristocrat who could pony up the cash to outfit his forces. THerefore loyalty was first to Marcus Whoevericus first and the state second or even last. Our forces are STATE forces, not private and swear an oath of allegiance to defend the Constituion, not the Pres, or some other specific office/person.
5. We ALL have the right to vote, not just the landed, wealthy citizens.
6. OUr nation has public education that, at the very least teaches ALL citizens to read/think critically - not just the aristocratic/financial elite. This in itself is empowering because they can, even on an elementary level, follow the events and exercise a vote to make a difference.
7. Our nation is as much founded on Judeo/Christian values as it is Roman Republic construct. Like I said about the obilisk, we also don't parade prisoners of war, exotic animals into a public forum for execution/entertainment of the masses - it wouldn't be tolerated because the moral/ethical values are not the same as the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...

The scale argument didn't work when you made it because you were talking about the scale of individual and group mechanics - which are two very different things. Here we have two societies, both forming empires, with distinct similarities. That is why the scale argument works for me. As far as your point, you are misinformed on every single one...

1. GW Bush was not VOTED into office, first of all. Secondly, the Roman Republic gave us the concept of term limits. Their political offices of Censors, Praetors, Tribunes, and Senators all had term limits in order to limit the power of that individual. The Romans (and ourselves) subverted this process by making public service = the amount of money you had.
2. Neither did the Romans of the Republican times.
3. Our checks and balances were based of theirs. They certainly did have checks and balances. Our forefathers saw how those balances were destroyed in the days of the late republic and that is why they tried to sactify them with our constitution. Our current POTUS' policies will destroy those checks and balances and it will lead to the same ends that it did the Romans.
4. Roman forces were STATE forces. Roman armies were funded by TAXES and private aristocratic donations. The men who destroyed the Roman Republic formed private armies to do this. Haliberton is the first edition of this old phenomenon come around again.
5. All roman citizens had the right to vote. It did not matter how poor they were. In the late republic, this was taken away from many people because the power of the Tribunate threatened the power of the military/economic complex. Can you think of any voters now days who are systematically denied the right to vote? Have you talked to any of the black people in Florida who were chased away from the ballot box by Jeb Bush's thugs?
6. The Romans of the Republic had public education system. Most of what we know of Roman times come from the letters that normal citizens wrote back and forth to each other. The whole idea of public education is a Roman concept!
7. And Saddam Huissain piped into every television in the country wasn't a parade! Prisoners of war lined up along side the road for everyone to see, wasn't a parade either! Do you watch television? How many people do our children see murdered by the time they are 18? Is that any less brutal then gladatorial combat? The difference is that on television, its up close and personal. Every gory detail is delectable for a society addicted to violence.

Again, I reassert, "nearly analogous". If anyone continues to debate this, jump in.

TGACE

The fact that this is nothing new does not make it morally right. We should learn from the mistakes of the past, instead of trying to rationalize our ignorance.

upnorthkyosa
 
Rich Parsons said:
MartialTalk Admin Note:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.


Martial Talk Assistant Administrator
Rich Parsons
Click to expand...

Rich, could you identify the things that you are viewing/concerned might be pushing/crossing the respect lines. If it is that much of a concern, I want to know what could lead to suspension/repercussions.
 
Havent had much success changing since the Roman times (according to you) what makes you think we are going to have any luck now???
 
Hmm hockey is kinda like gladiatorial combat....We have an eagle as our mascot too...toga parties at colleges.... :) The uniforms are much more comfortable now though.

What I dont get is ...the Roman Empire lasted how many hundreds/thousands of years and were headed for the Fall just short of 300?? Maybe we should try to be MORE like them....
 
Re: Admin Note:
It is policy as needed/possible to act preemptively, rather than wait for things to flare up. This way we hope to avoid the need for suspensions and bans.

If this is a concern to anyone, please start a new thread in the support forum, not here.

Thank you.

Now, may I request that things focus on the topics at hand as I personally am finding them rather interesting.
:)
 
I see some similarities between the Roman Empire and the (growing) American Empire. But there are also some differences. I think one of the biggest similarities goes right to the US 'Checks and Balances'.

The constitution states that Congress shall have the sole authority to declare war, yet congress has abdicated this authority to the executive. It is embarrassing, I think.

Is it OK that the Administration used mis-leading statements to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Such as:

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency ... It has developed weapons of mass death." George Bush

"We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a neclear weapon." Richard Cheney.

"We said they had a neclear program. That was never any debate". Donald Rumsfeld

"The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again." Colin Powell

"Had there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in, or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone." Condolezza Rice (refering to the Yellowcake statement in the 2003 State of the Union speech).

Each of these statements was demonstrably misleading (or false in the case of Ms. Rice). My question is ... Of what consequence?

Mike
 
upnorthkyosa said:
Interesting, but obvious obfuscation. If behooves the Establishment to rewrite actual historical events. Otherwise, the past becomes a beacon...
Click to expand...
The Globalist Institute and Global Policy Org a part of the "establishment"??? Your tinfoil hats slipping..........Theyre probably as far from Republican/conservative as you can get. The other is from the BBC....???
 
seems theres 2 different issues here.....is it that the war is "wrong" or the way we got into it is "wrong" ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

legal question

Previous Thread

NASA Cover-up?

Next Thread

Similar threads

Big Don
Nothing the US did in Iraq could ever constitute a war crime
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
Twin Fist
Twin Fist
Makalakumu
Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to Bush and his Cronies for War Crimes
Replies
1
Views
804
granfire
granfire
M
President Bush and Iraq
Replies
8
Views
852
Jonathan Randall
J
elder999
Bush, Lies, and Liars by Law
Replies
2
Views
678
Makalakumu
Makalakumu
Bob Hubbard
DF: Top Lies About Iraq from the Bush Administration
Replies
1
Views
1K
jazkiljok
J

Latest Discussions

Back
Top