A friendly reminder: Bill O'Reilly takes aim at Saddam Hussein, Gerhard Schroeder

There is a life lesson in watching how America's alleged allies are dealing with the Saddam Hussein situation. Just this week, Germany and Saudi Arabia said flat out that the United States could expect no help from them in attempting to remove the Iraqi tyrant. The Saudi behavior was predictable, as that nation has proved over and over it will not cooperate with America's war on Islamic terror. But Germany's stance is extremely interesting.

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is up for re-election this fall and things are not looking good for the big burgomaster. He is running behind in the polls to a conservative candidate, and his only hope is to galvanize the anti-American German left. So Schroeder is putting his political career ahead of doing the right thing – supporting his friends the Americans.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a murderous thug. He has started two wars, gassed Kurdish children, fired Scud missiles at Israeli civilians, and killed and tortured thousands of his own people – including his son-in-law. According to defectors, Saddam has highly paid scientists working on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Does anyone believe the man is not capable of handing over deadly germs to al-Qaida operatives?

Still, we hear the drumbeat of skepticism about Saddam's intentions and capabilities. This same drumbeat was heard 65 years ago in Germany itself. It was in the late 1930s that journalists like William Shirer began reporting on the murderous intentions of Adolph Hitler. Yet many refused to believe the Third Reich was bent on world domination and savagery. President Franklin Roosevelt and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy scoffed at early reports of mass executions by the SS and the Gestapo. Millions of Americans wanted to see more "proof."

Saddam Hussein is not nearly as powerful as Hitler was, but his mindset is similar. He hates the Jews, hates the decadent West, hates just about everyone. Yet millions clamor for more evidence that Saddam is a danger.

Of course, this is foolish and dangerous. And it is exactly the way the United States handled Osama bin Laden in the '90s. The Clinton administration thought it could contain bin Laden after he ordered the bombings of two American Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen. The men captured and tried for those crimes gave up bin Laden, but the United States did not aggressively go after him because of the perceived political damage killing him would have caused in the Arab world and Afghanistan.

U.S. intelligence rightly concludes that it is just a matter of time before Saddam finds a delivery system for whatever weapons he is able to develop. We know from Czech intelligence that one of Saddam's top spies met with 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta in Prague a few months before the attack. We also know from Russian intelligence that former Soviet weapons experts are on the Iraqi payroll.

Gerhard Schroeder knows all this as well. But he is calculating that Saddam will not attack his country, and Schroeder seems to be ready to accept a first-strike by Saddam somewhere else. Danke, Gerhard.

For sheer, colossal ingratitude, it is hard to beat Germany. America rebuilt that country after World War II and protected the majority of Germans from the Soviet Union. We have spent trillions over there and now, when we need them, the Germans are not there for us. This is a very vivid lesson that generosity does not always swing both ways.

Even if Schroeder and his countrymen have doubts about the wisdom of America's Saddam policy, they should give the United States the benefit of the doubt. Don't they owe America that much after all it has done for them?

It disturbs me greatly that so many people all over the world are willing to play Russian roulette with the likes of Saddam Hussein. They are comfortable betting that this madman might not strike them. That if he attacks, somebody else will bear the brunt of the carnage. This is cowardly and unacceptable after 3,000 American civilians were killed last September.

The Gerhard Schroeders of the world are terrorist enablers. There is no reason on this earth why a man as dangerous as Saddam Hussein should be able to continue to operate. The rest of the world may not have the courage to deal with Saddam but America knows that with weapons of mass destruction a "one strike and you're out" policy is simply irresponsible. Saddam has to go. And so does Schroeder.

I think you would probably have to do a Nexus search to find that stuff. The Internet was still the realm of government agencies and universities back then.

After looking at the Leo II pics, and after a bit more thought, It was probably a Leopard I that was taken. At that time, the German military's attitude towards the Russians and their Warsaw Pact lacky's was to keep their powder dry and muskets loaded at all times. Memories of the Eastern Front still haunted their senior commanders....

Generally their security made ours look pitiful, but I think what happened was that when the flat cars that the tanks were on pulled into a switching station for the night, a couple of brigade members dressed as rail workers slipped aboard one of the tanks, started it, and drove it off the side of the flat car into some nearby woods before anyone could stop them.

People do not realize just how real the threat was then. Our scout pilots used to train on the border by flying along until Pact ADA locked them up and then practiced using terrain to dodge and break the radar lock.

I went on one of those flights when the radar detector blared over the headset. I looked off to the right, and about 300 yards away was a ZSU 23-4 tracking us that had been hidden under some camo netting. Had it been a shooting war we'd have been a definite kill - shredded by a quad 23mm. That peaked my pucker factor.

Had Reagan not been elected and imediately started to build up our forces and install the Pershing missles, I feel that the Soviets would have decided to throw the dice and go for it. Those first two books by Clancy were spot on. We were vulnerable as hell and the Soviets knew it. They also had the nuclear wherewithal to make nuclear retaliation too risky for a panty-waist like Carter. They played him like a violin in all those arms limitation talks.

Wow!

Reading that post gave me the shivers when i realized that for you guys WW3 must have been hot and in progress. Playing chicken with ZSUs and radar locks is something that smacks of amazing daring to me. You guys must have been in a state of constant readiness for a Soviet push towards Western Europe.

Actually i did come across some documents that showed some in the Soviet hierachy had been planning a blitzkrieg style tank rush into Europe, with W. Germany being their first 'stop.' And that the Soviet maneuvre of always moving their MBTs on railtracks (to avoid our missiles from targeting their tanks) had started to drift in a stratagem pattern that would allow the armor to converge in a manner condusive to a sudden thrust.

On top of that i have seen reports that depicted how close a global nuclear conflagration came into becoming reality! For example how Soviet polar radar had locked on some cloud formation and thought it was an American ICBM surprise strike, and that only one guy stopped them from launching their own stuff (this guy, i forget his name for obvious reasons, actually started receiving 'thank you' cards from people in the West for averting a nuclear holocaust once his story was reported). Obviously the US also made similar 'errors' when it came to the confusion of cloud gatherings as Soviet SLBMs!

Anyway it must have been quite stressful to have served in certain sections of the military (eg the ones who actually knew what was going on or were in areas requiring constant vigilance). For you guys you must have been virtually in a state of war 24/7!

And then people over here would practice running under desks as if that would protect them from a thermonuclear detonation! I find it hilarious to tell you the truth when i see the tapes 'teaching' kids how to squat underneath their desks at school if 'they see a flash' or they hear a siren!

The stress must have been almost overwhelming, especially when you consider the foe then was the USSR not some jehadi camp in Afghanistan, and that the concept of M.A.D meant that even the 'winner' lost since there were enough ICBMS and SLBMs (and for you guys in W. Germany IRBMs) on both sides to ensure that even the 'winning' country got sufficient nukes to ensure life as they knew it ceased to exist.

Actually i find MAD to be an interesting concept since i guess it showed that the Soviets(as well as us) had the sense to not launch even preemptive strikes due to the fact of certain reprisal from the other camp. Imagine if some jehadi group like al queda got their mits on a tactical nuke! They would not hesitate to use it, even if it meant certain locales in the mid-east being turned into flat green glass by US reprisals! That is why i am somewhat glad it was the Soviets who were the 'uber-foe' instead of some Islamic nation that was trigger happy and willing to be accepted into 'Allah's bosom!'

But that is not to say the situation you guys faced was not frightening. I am pretty sure you garnered enough stories to write a book.

Anyways kudos for your great work doing your duty in a place that was under constant threat, and managing to do it and do it well.

Speaking as a Brit, here's how I think the vast majority here see it. Not the Guardian readers, but say the average Telegraph or Daily Mirror reader.

We actually like fighting, we're extremely good at it on the sort of scale where we normally work and our military in general does better than our soccer teams when it does it's stuff. So basically, given the right proposition, most people here would be up for it in a heartbeat, as long as they were reasonably confident of a favourable outcome. They probably would particularly give a toss whether it was justified or not. Britain has traditionally been very pragmatic about these things. The oil reserves that bankers will actually lend money on (as opposed to the other kind) probably run out in a decade or two. Saudi is very unstable. Clearly there's an argument for taking Iraq away from Saddam.

We just want to see a plan that's actually viable, given the other considerations. Iraq isn't just another godforsaken country in Africa where we can all just walk away if our military presence there turns messy. It's the second largest, and potentially the largest source of the stuff that makes the world economy work. We *have* to have a plan that makes sense for what we do after we've stuck Saddam's head on a pike.

I completely concur with what you are saying. And actually i took those polls that were saying 'most' Brits are against the war with Iraq with much more than a grain of salt! After all it is a tad bit too simple to 'alter' poll results to portray the image you want them to! They are too subjective.

However going to a more 'important' subject! It pertains to the following statement you made: ....in general does better than our soccer teams ........

Watch what you say, you are speaking to a rabid ardent fan of Arsenal F.C and i have been known to foam at my bits when someone says something that is not appropos about Arsenal! Especially my chums who seem to think (mistakenly ofcourse) that Manchester United is a better team! The sots! The only thing MU has is more funds, otherwise Arsenal rocks.

Anyway let me desist from my ramblings and get back to more pressing tasks.

Nice talking to you by the way. Since i left Kenya it is not everday i chit-chat with a Brit. Thus nice chatting with ya (as long as you are not a MU fan)!

"WW3 must have been hot and in progress."

When I arrived in Germany in July of '81 I was assigned to an attack helicopter unit in the 3d ID (Mech). The Cobras assigned to us had tail numbers going back to 1968. They were G models with the 40mm grenade launcher and 7.62 mini-gun in the chin turret.

The opinion at that time was that if the Warsaw Pact attacked, we'd last about two weeks before the ammo ran out (if that). Earliest re-supply / re-enforcement (except for the 82d) was estimated at 4 to 5 weeks because of the shortage of air and sea-lift. It didn't take a genius to do that math.

And for those that knew anything about the Soviets, being a POW was not an option. Most of us grew our hair as long as we could, and made sure we knew the way south to switzerland. I had some high-school German and mad a point of becoming as fluent as I could so I could pass as a German national if it came to E&E. There was absolutely no confidence that we could hold off an invasion. The term "Window of Vulnerability" came about at this time and there is a book by the same name that explains it.

By the time I left in the summer of 83, that had all changed. We had new aircraft, Ammo stocks to last till resupply, and the knowledge that we at least stood a fighting chance. During that time Reagan also had the Pershing theater nuclear missles installed in Germany to counter the Soviet SR & MRBM's. Those who say that Reagan had nothing to do with winning the Cold War have not got a clue. The purpose of the Red Brigades was to disrupt this re-armament and turn German public opinion against the U.S. There were also daily rent-a-mob demonstrations against the installation of the Pershings. It almost worked. At one point Reagan quitely threatened to "bring the boys" home. We were actually ordered to start inventorying our equipment in preparation to come home. A week or two later the German Parliament signed on.

In 1980-85 the Soviets had reached their peak in terms of military technology applications. Their military had reached a use it or lose it proposition in terms of advantage. They had done all they could the technology they had stolen and their own industry could not take them further on its own. Meanwhile we were still armed with 50's and 60's military technology that was ten to fifteen years behind what they were fielding.

The Abrams M1, the Improved Cobra, the A-10 and other weapons systems that Reagan fast tracked to close the gap made a huge difference. That and the fact that Reagan proved willing to look them in the eye and not blink. In 1980 they had a clear military superiority. By 1983 we had parity. By 85 we were clearly superior. They could not keep up technologically (the Soviets took Stars Wars very seriously while scoffing at it in public and getting our libs to ridicule it). The Gulf War which pitted our stuff against theirs showed that.

Imagine if we had tried to fight the Gulf War without A-10's, M1 Abrams, Bradleys, Apaches, MLRS, Patriot Missles, etc., and I think you will see my point. And, Warsaw pact soldiers were far better trained in the use of their equipment than the Iraqi's were.

Hi Vab,

The following is one of the posts i have been getting from a Freeper called Psyop who served our country during the Cold War, and his posts on this thread have been very interesting.

And since i know of your past military service and some of the stuff you told me about your experience in the Gulf i thought you might want to peruse through some of this stuff. The following is the last post i got from Pysop ....follow it back for his other posts.

Freegards,

Spetz!

When I arrived in Germany in July of '81 I was assigned to an attack helicopter unit in the 3d ID (Mech). The Cobras assigned to us had tail numbers going back to 1968. They were G models with the 40mm grenade launcher and 7.62 mini-gun in the chin turret.

The opinion at that time was that if the Warsaw Pact attacked, we'd last about two weeks before the ammo ran out (if that). Earliest re-supply / re-enforcement (except for the 82d) was estimated at 4 to 5 weeks because of the shortage of air and sea-lift. It didn't take a genius to do that math.

And for those that knew anything about the Soviets, being a POW was not an option. Most of us grew our hair as long as we could, and made sure we knew the way south to switzerland. I had some high-school German and mad a point of becoming as fluent as I could so I could pass as a German national if it came to E&E. There was absolutely no confidence that we could hold off an invasion. The term "Window of Vulnerability" came about at this time and there is a book by the same name that explains it.

By the time I left in the summer of 83, that had all changed. We had new aircraft, Ammo stocks to last till resupply, and the knowledge that we at least stood a fighting chance. During that time Reagan also had the Pershing theater nuclear missles installed in Germany to counter the Soviet SR & MRBM's. Those who say that Reagan had nothing to do with winning the Cold War have not got a clue. The purpose of the Red Brigades was to disrupt this re-armament and turn German public opinion against the U.S. There were also daily rent-a-mob demonstrations against the installation of the Pershings. It almost worked. At one point Reagan quitely threatened to "bring the boys" home. We were actually ordered to start inventorying our equipment in preparation to come home. A week or two later the German Parliament signed on.

In 1980-85 the Soviets had reached their peak in terms of military technology applications. Their military had reached a use it or lose it proposition in terms of advantage. They had done all they could the technology they had stolen and their own industry could not take them further on its own. Meanwhile we were still armed with 50's and 60's military technology that was ten to fifteen years behind what they were fielding.

The Abrams M1, the Improved Cobra, the A-10 and other weapons systems that Reagan fast tracked to close the gap made a huge difference. That and the fact that Reagan proved willing to look them in the eye and not blink. In 1980 they had a clear military superiority. By 1983 we had parity. By 85 we were clearly superior. They could not keep up technologically (the Soviets took Stars Wars very seriously while scoffing at it in public and getting our libs to ridicule it). The Gulf War which pitted our stuff against theirs showed that.

Imagine if we had tried to fight the Gulf War without A-10's, M1 Abrams, Bradleys, Apaches, MLRS, Patriot Missles, etc., and I think you will see my point. And, Warsaw pact soldiers were far better trained in the use of their equipment than the Iraqi's were.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.