Posted on 08/08/2002 3:28:02 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
House Majority Leader warns against unprovoked attack on Iraq Thurs Aug 8 2002 16:30:05 ET
House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) addressed an Iowa crowd on Thursday and raised questions about whether he would support an American war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
"My own view would be to let [Saddam] bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants and let that be a matter between he and his own country. As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him.'
"If we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, with proper provocation, we will not have the support of other nation states who might do so."
"He has a right to hold dominion within his own national boundaries, as obnoxious as he is and as comical as he can be."
Developing...
We have much to fear.
As soon as Saddam threw out the inspectors, I began assuming he was hiding something. This week he is belatedly talking about allowing some inspectors back in again, but by now we know how that works: he'll show them a few Potemkin bunkers, while stalling at letting them in to see the installations we really suspect while he shuffles the WMD's from place to place. Time to blow his tinpot empire to hell before any smallpox or plutonium can get exported to the civilized world.
Yep.
And the best time to launch would be about the time TVs around the world are replaying their broadcasts of 9-11-01, replete with people leaping to their deaths from the towers.
Of course, if we are going to bludgeon anybody (Iran) who is remotely connected to the attack, that would be the best time, politically and psychologically, to do it. I want to see a slaughter.
We do not currently have the logistics capability, to establish the additional logistics chain which we need to be able to operate on our own, in the middle-East.
We need bases in Africa, Europe, and southern Asia.
We need quite a lot more of transport aircraft and the maintenance depots to handle them.
This shopping list, is actually very lengthy. Yet so many of officialdom inside the Beltway, have been concerned about saying "No" to the higher-ups of the Bush Administration, we are not really getting the more accurate picture of how un-prepared for war, are we.
The velocity of money which manifests "white papers" about "the mission" and "new paradigms" has also fostered (during Clinton) a "community" of impractical thinkers, read: dreamers.
What the "future battlefield" may be, and writing about it, has been a method for advancement, both in and out of uniform, in the "defense bidness."
There is quite a lot of hype about what the future battlefield ... well, now supposedly it's here. I guess "you" could say that it is, considering that the language of it --- a whole "dialog" of defense "gobbledygook" --- has been spun and then spins itself up into "a life of its own."
To wit: There's a lot of talk about how "missions" will be fulfilled by "systems" ... but that works on paper.
In reallity, ships get sunk or fail to arrive on time. Aircraft wear out (you'd be amazed how fast). People wear out. Etc.
Not much planning has gone into the practicalities of being at war.
We need --- God forbid --- to be able to project a force overseas, which force is nearly as great as the "first wave," so as to rescue the "first wave," should the "first wave" fail. Now where are we going to get the ______ to do that?
We do not have the ships.
We do not have the aircraft.
We do not have the tanks.
We do not have the logistics supply chain to support it!
We are not prepared for war on the scale we must be prepared, to be able to unequivocably THUMP! whoever "pulls a fast one on us" in the flank, or rear ... as we descend upon whoever our enemies may be, in the lands surrounding the Fascist Islamic bastions.
We might, repeat might, "get some respect" over there, we could have, had President Bush actually been consistent; but he has not been consistent.
He has said many bold things about finding the rocks under which our enemies live, but he has also sheltered our enemies. Furthermore, his convictions are seriously questioned by other possible allies, because he is grossly equivocating on the matter of our nation's borders and illegal aliens.
Then, there's the little matter of his insisting that we continue with helping North Korea to become a nuclear power --- this in the current atmosphere of how we are supposed to be wary of "dirty nuclear" weapons being "popped off" in or around some American cities. About which possibility, one Mr. Padillo (sp?) is being held in considerable Constitutional duress.
Arrest and hold him, but give Plutonium to the North Koreans?!
No, President Bush is not running on an honest keel.
Mr. Armey has tried to give us a break, so that we can have the desparate time we need to gather our strength.
You left out the use of chemical weapons against the Iranians. However, he chose not to use WMD against the coalition forces during the Persian Gulf War.
Bottom line: he is not a threat to us.
Means someone already had ProudAmerican.
Not likely...
Except the administration has not been able to establish a link between the terrorists and the Iraqi government.
No. If I call him an idiot, then I would have been calling him a name.
Get a life...
Army
I'm just curious if you know firsthand what Iraqi's do to innocent's. There's two types of Iraqi males; those that think they have the upper hand and go on melee's, and those that don't think they stand a chance and run like little b*tches. Right now, their trying to run, and ol' Saddam is chopping off their ears if they try. provokation (sic)...pfft..
Horrible, but not a threat to American interests.
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.