Drudgereport: The War Has Begun

CamEdwards · 03-19-2003, 02:31 PM

Drudgereport is linking to a London website that says fighting's already begun in Basra.

Here's the link.

atatange1 · 03-19-2003, 02:57 PM

If this is true, our New's would be ALL over it.

atatange1 · 03-19-2003, 03:00 PM

Back again. Man, you gotta love MSNBC they have a ticker counting down to 5:00.

KWhit · 03-19-2003, 03:01 PM

I hope that's not true. I mean we said we'd give Saddam 48 hours to get out. Even though he's said he won't leave, we should at least wait until after the deadline to go in and kick ass.

KWhit · 03-19-2003, 03:05 PM

CNN now reports that the US has started bombing Iraqui artillary that was moved into the no-fly zone. This would be legal even if we weren't about to go to war with them. So technically war has not begun.

Ben E Lou · 03-19-2003, 03:07 PM

1. We've been hitting targets in the southern no-fly zone for months (years?) now. I'm not sure this is anything new.

2. Bush told him he had 48 hours to leave. Saddam gave an unequivocal "no" answer. In my opinion, once he said no to the demand, he should consider himself subject to attack from that moment on.

Ksyrup · 03-19-2003, 03:18 PM

Offer made + clear rejection of offer = no more offer.

KWhit · 03-19-2003, 03:41 PM

Actually, I agree with you guys. But here's my problem. At this point in our history, the US has to be very careful not to look like a bully. We've already bungled this, IMO. Not by what we're doing (because I am actually for the war), but HOW we're going about it.

Attacking Iraq before the deadline is up is semi-questionable. It would leave us open for more criticism from the world. The rest of the world looks on us very unfavoably right now, so we have to be careful to do things "by the book."

Right now we are the only superpower. We are the Big Dawg. Other countries don't like this. Every time there has been a single dominant power in history, there has been resentment and a tendancy for the other countries to band together to contain them. We don't want to lose our allies.

It's starting to happen. I'm not suggesting that tomorrow Germany, France, and Russia are going to sign treaties to protect themselves from us. But over the next few years, I am afraid our go it alone tendencies are going to create a bigger rift between us and the rest of the world.

Bush 1 has said he would have fought the 1st Gulf war alone if he had to, but he used diplomacy to insure that didn't happen. We had the whole world with us.

Yes, Bush 2 did go to the UN to get 1441 passed and tried to get another resolution as well. But he made it known that the US didn't need the other countries and really didn't care if they were in or out. His rhetoric has been quite inflamatory as well. He has made it known that the US is about to let all kind of Hell loose. This scares a lot of countries - not just those that are "obvious" targets.

Let's face it. Bush 2 is NOT a diplomat. It is a total cliche to say it, but it's true: he is a cowboy.

I just wish Colin Powell were president, but that's just me.

GrantDawg · 03-19-2003, 03:57 PM

The article sounds realistic. They were small incursions to "clear the path" for the major invasion. I can guarantee we have many troops in Iraq right now, especially in the northern zone.

henry296 · 03-19-2003, 04:00 PM

Grant,

Why do you think they are in the North, since Turkey has not given us permission to use their bases?

Todd

GrantDawg · 03-19-2003, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by henry296
Grant,

Why do you think they are in the North, since Turkey has not given us permission to use their bases?

Todd

Because we have Kurd "friends" up there and they have a part in the attack. There are ways to get troops were you need them.

Fritz · 03-19-2003, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Because we have Kurd "friends" up there and they have a part in the attack. There are ways to get troops were you need them.

Submarine!

Hammer755 · 03-19-2003, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KWhit

I just wish Colin Powell were president, but that's just me.

Why so? Powell has done much of the behind the scenes diplomacy that has succeeded as well as Bush's public version. Why do you feel Powell would be more effective as the president?

KWhit · 03-19-2003, 04:38 PM

I believe Powell has been fighting a losing battle within the administration vs Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as to how to handle the Iraq problem.

Powell has been less than effective, but I believe that is because of the confrontational atmosphere Bush created with his "Axis of Evil" comments and the fact the he stated the US would go it alone before the diplomacy had even started. (Jeez, that was a long sentence!) And these are just 2 examples. There are plenty more where Bush has effectively scared the shit out of the rest of the world (including our allies).

But back to Powell. I believe the most important attribute a president needs to be successful at foreign policy is diplomacy. Powell always says the right thing. He never loses his cool and he plays the game.

Another example: There are 2 ways to say we're gonna get Bin Laden. Bush said, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, Wanted: Dead or Alive." Powell would have conveyed the same message but would have come across much better to the rest of the world. Because world opinion DOES matter. Perhaps now more than ever, since we're the sole superpower.

Take a look at this poll.

Time Europe Poll

It's from Time - Europe. I found others similar as well from other international news organizations. I don't put a lot of faith in opinion polls, but it shows how insecure the world is with our power. The poll asks who is a greater threat to peace - Iraq, North Korea, or the US? The US got 88% of the more than 660,000 votes.

Anrhydeddu · 03-19-2003, 04:41 PM

I don't need to see that poll, you said it's from Time - Europe and that's all that needs to be said.

KWhit · 03-19-2003, 04:43 PM

Well, yeah. Considering the point I am making is how the rest of the world views us, I think it makes more sense to ask them than it would to ask a bunch of Americans!

KWhit · 03-19-2003, 04:45 PM

Dola -

Here's one from our biggest ally the British as reported by CNN. It says the same thing, just not as wide a margin.

CNN story

Bee · 03-19-2003, 04:46 PM

The Washington Post did a poll as well about how we are viewed. (I'm too lazy to link it, go look it up

).

We are not well thought of right now anyplace in the world. Of course, world opinion of the US has always been fickle.

Anrhydeddu · 03-19-2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Well, yeah. Considering the point I am making is how the rest of the world views us, I think it makes more sense to ask them than it would to ask a bunch of Americans!

Why? Do they vote in American elections? And to go off on a slight tangent, wouldn't it make more sense for a nation to do the opposite of what it's enemies (or at least those that do not care about that nation's self-interest and ideals) favors??

Airhog · 03-19-2003, 04:48 PM

I would imagine that secret ops have been going on for some time now.

KWhit · 03-19-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Why? Do they vote in American elections? And to go off on a slight tangent, wouldn't it make more sense for a nation to do the opposite of what it's enemies (or at least those that do not care about that nation's self-interest and ideals) favors??

Are you serious?

It is in our nation's self-interest to not make enemies.
The more allies we have in the world, the better off we are.
The stronger our relationship with our allies, the better off we are.

I thought this was obvious stuff.

CHEMICAL SOLDIER · 03-19-2003, 05:07 PM

O wouldn't out much creedance on the report from DrudgeReport . Although SF Forces are probably fighting the shadow war as we speak in different parts of iraq .

Anrhydeddu · 03-19-2003, 05:14 PM

1. There always have been and always will be many nations that hate us for the ideals presented in the Bill of Rights and democratic principles this country was founded upon.

2. The same holds true with the Judeo-Christian basis for many of our laws.

3. If we believe in those principles, wouldn't we defend those against those that will take those away from us? Where the conflict comes in is that we have always (and still, with this administration at least) believe that other nations should enjoy the freedoms and liberties we have strived to obtain throughout our history.

Realistically, diplomatically and militarally, this is awkward to achieve. The Saudis, for example, as much as they hate Saddam, they hate the thought of a democratic nation in the region. Apartheid South Africa also hated these principles. And to some extent, many of the socialistic-leaning nations of the EU.

So far, however, it has worked internationally because people from ALL nations, including from Europe still wish to come to and live in the US (as oppose to the other way around). We may be arrogant in thinking that this is the best, though not perfect by any means (no government established and run by 'man' can be perfect), because history has clearly proven that out.

When the UN votes solely for the purpose to undermine the sovereignty and economic freedoms of the US, the people of the world should worry because that means we will become more like the nations they are wanting to flee from.

Allies are great to have but not at the expense of severly compromising and reducing freedoms and liberties. If we end up (which we may) as the only nation on this earth that still upholds these principles, than that is the right thing to do.

To me, that is the obvious point.

03-19-2003, 03:05 PM	#5
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	CNN now reports that the US has started bombing Iraqui artillary that was moved into the no-fly zone. This would be legal even if we weren't about to go to war with them. So technically war has not begun. Last edited by KWhit : 03-19-2003 at 03:06 PM.

03-19-2003, 03:07 PM	#6
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	1. We've been hitting targets in the southern no-fly zone for months (years?) now. I'm not sure this is anything new. 2. Bush told him he had 48 hours to leave. Saddam gave an unequivocal "no" answer. In my opinion, once he said no to the demand, he should consider himself subject to attack from that moment on. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

03-19-2003, 03:18 PM	#7
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	Offer made + clear rejection of offer = no more offer. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

03-19-2003, 04:00 PM	#10
henry296 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Pittsburgh, PA	Grant, Why do you think they are in the North, since Turkey has not given us permission to use their bases? Todd __________________ "It's a great day for hockey" - "Badger" Bob Johnson

03-19-2003, 04:48 PM	#20
Airhog Captain Obvious Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Norman, Oklahoma	I would imagine that secret ops have been going on for some time now. __________________ Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again! Last edited by Airhog : 03-19-2003 at 04:49 PM.

03-19-2003, 02:57 PM	#2
atatange1 High School JV Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: WA state	If this is true, our New's would be ALL over it.

03-19-2003, 03:00 PM	#3
atatange1 High School JV Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: WA state	Back again. Man, you gotta love MSNBC they have a ticker counting down to 5:00.

03-19-2003, 03:01 PM	#4
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	I hope that's not true. I mean we said we'd give Saddam 48 hours to get out. Even though he's said he won't leave, we should at least wait until after the deadline to go in and kick ass.

03-19-2003, 03:41 PM	#8
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	Actually, I agree with you guys. But here's my problem. At this point in our history, the US has to be very careful not to look like a bully. We've already bungled this, IMO. Not by what we're doing (because I am actually for the war), but HOW we're going about it. Attacking Iraq before the deadline is up is semi-questionable. It would leave us open for more criticism from the world. The rest of the world looks on us very unfavoably right now, so we have to be careful to do things "by the book." Right now we are the only superpower. We are the Big Dawg. Other countries don't like this. Every time there has been a single dominant power in history, there has been resentment and a tendancy for the other countries to band together to contain them. We don't want to lose our allies. It's starting to happen. I'm not suggesting that tomorrow Germany, France, and Russia are going to sign treaties to protect themselves from us. But over the next few years, I am afraid our go it alone tendencies are going to create a bigger rift between us and the rest of the world. Bush 1 has said he would have fought the 1st Gulf war alone if he had to, but he used diplomacy to insure that didn't happen. We had the whole world with us. Yes, Bush 2 did go to the UN to get 1441 passed and tried to get another resolution as well. But he made it known that the US didn't need the other countries and really didn't care if they were in or out. His rhetoric has been quite inflamatory as well. He has made it known that the US is about to let all kind of Hell loose. This scares a lot of countries - not just those that are "obvious" targets. Let's face it. Bush 2 is NOT a diplomat. It is a total cliche to say it, but it's true: he is a cowboy. I just wish Colin Powell were president, but that's just me.

03-19-2003, 03:57 PM	#9
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	The article sounds realistic. They were small incursions to "clear the path" for the major invasion. I can guarantee we have many troops in Iraq right now, especially in the northern zone.

03-19-2003, 04:38 PM	#14
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	I believe Powell has been fighting a losing battle within the administration vs Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as to how to handle the Iraq problem. Powell has been less than effective, but I believe that is because of the confrontational atmosphere Bush created with his "Axis of Evil" comments and the fact the he stated the US would go it alone before the diplomacy had even started. (Jeez, that was a long sentence!) And these are just 2 examples. There are plenty more where Bush has effectively scared the shit out of the rest of the world (including our allies). But back to Powell. I believe the most important attribute a president needs to be successful at foreign policy is diplomacy. Powell always says the right thing. He never loses his cool and he plays the game. Another example: There are 2 ways to say we're gonna get Bin Laden. Bush said, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, Wanted: Dead or Alive." Powell would have conveyed the same message but would have come across much better to the rest of the world. Because world opinion DOES matter. Perhaps now more than ever, since we're the sole superpower. Take a look at this poll. Time Europe Poll It's from Time - Europe. I found others similar as well from other international news organizations. I don't put a lot of faith in opinion polls, but it shows how insecure the world is with our power. The poll asks who is a greater threat to peace - Iraq, North Korea, or the US? The US got 88% of the more than 660,000 votes.

03-19-2003, 04:41 PM	#15
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	I don't need to see that poll, you said it's from Time - Europe and that's all that needs to be said.

03-19-2003, 04:43 PM	#16
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	Well, yeah. Considering the point I am making is how the rest of the world views us, I think it makes more sense to ask them than it would to ask a bunch of Americans!

03-19-2003, 04:45 PM	#17
KWhit Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Conyers GA	Dola - Here's one from our biggest ally the British as reported by CNN. It says the same thing, just not as wide a margin. CNN story

03-19-2003, 04:46 PM	#18
Bee Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fairfax, VA	The Washington Post did a poll as well about how we are viewed. (I'm too lazy to link it, go look it up ). We are not well thought of right now anyplace in the world. Of course, world opinion of the US has always been fickle.

03-19-2003, 05:07 PM	#22
CHEMICAL SOLDIER College Starter Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Henderson, Nevada	O wouldn't out much creedance on the report from DrudgeReport . Although SF Forces are probably fighting the shadow war as we speak in different parts of iraq . __________________ Toujour Pret

03-19-2003, 05:14 PM	#23
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	1. There always have been and always will be many nations that hate us for the ideals presented in the Bill of Rights and democratic principles this country was founded upon. 2. The same holds true with the Judeo-Christian basis for many of our laws. 3. If we believe in those principles, wouldn't we defend those against those that will take those away from us? Where the conflict comes in is that we have always (and still, with this administration at least) believe that other nations should enjoy the freedoms and liberties we have strived to obtain throughout our history. Realistically, diplomatically and militarally, this is awkward to achieve. The Saudis, for example, as much as they hate Saddam, they hate the thought of a democratic nation in the region. Apartheid South Africa also hated these principles. And to some extent, many of the socialistic-leaning nations of the EU. So far, however, it has worked internationally because people from ALL nations, including from Europe still wish to come to and live in the US (as oppose to the other way around). We may be arrogant in thinking that this is the best, though not perfect by any means (no government established and run by 'man' can be perfect), because history has clearly proven that out. When the UN votes solely for the purpose to undermine the sovereignty and economic freedoms of the US, the people of the world should worry because that means we will become more like the nations they are wanting to flee from. Allies are great to have but not at the expense of severly compromising and reducing freedoms and liberties. If we end up (which we may) as the only nation on this earth that still upholds these principles, than that is the right thing to do. To me, that is the obvious point.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)