Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Britain's Post-WWI Role in Iraq Recalled [History of Irak]
AP ^ | 3/6/2003 | BARRY RENFREW

Posted on 03/06/2003 8:17:27 PM PST by a_Turk

LONDON - Bombing, invasion and regime change by a superpower — Iraq has seen it all before in its recent history.

For 40 years after World War I, Britain tried to control Iraq, pioneering aerial bombing as a way of enforcing its power. One British general urged using poison gas.

Now, as Washington and London warn that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) must be removed and talk of building democracy in Iraq, U.S. and British troops may soon be retracing routes followed during one of the darker episodes of British colonial history.

Britain took over Iraq during World War I, chasing out the Turks, who occupied the region for centuries. British officials divided up the collapsed Turkish empire, creating several new nations, including Iraq.

The British commander who captured Baghdad in 1917, Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude, told the people his troops had come to free them.

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," he said in a proclamation.

It was not an easy victory. A British army had been surrounded and forced to surrender in 1916 at Kut on the Tigris River, south of Baghdad. Of 10,000 British and Indian soldiers taken captive, some 4,000 died in terrible conditions in Turkish prison camps.

Wanting to hold on to the region for its oil and strategic position on the route to India, the jewel of the British Empire, London sent officials to run Iraq as an outpost of their vast dominion. It ignored criticism from the United States, which opposed colonialism.

The Arabs, who had helped the British fight the Turks, did not want to change one set of foreign rulers for another. In 1920, anti-British riots turned into a bloody revolt.

Faced with threats in many colonies, British commanders came up with "air control" — using the newly developed warplane to bomb opponents and avoid expensive and bloody ground engagements. Critics dubbed it "empire on the cheap."

Iraq became a testing ground for the new imperial big stick. British Bristol and Wapiti bombers hammered rebel tribesmen, destroying their villages. The British commander, Gen. Sir Aylmer Haldane, demanded London send poison gas, but the Iraqis were defeated before any action was taken.

Delayed action bombs were used on Iraqi villages to catch residents who returned after bombing raids.

British officials, including Winston Churchill, then the colonial minister, hailed air control as the perfect method of policing the empire.

Some British commanders denounced the new techniques as unsporting. Administrators said the army was just upset at being upstaged by the air force, whose officers it considered socially inferior.

"Much needless cruelty is necessarily inflicted, which in many cases will not cower the tribesmen, but implant in them undying hatred and a desire for revenge. The policy weakens the tribesman's faith in British fair play," wrote Col. Francis Humphries, a critic of bombing.

London was convinced the bombing had pacified Iraq. The British military presence was cut from 23 battalions in 1923 to two in 1928.

Air Marshall Sir John Salmon, in a lecture on the merits of air control in Iraq, said it transformed the country. "A heterogeneous collection of wild and inarticulate tribes has emerged in an ordered system of representative government by the vote," he said after the revolt was crushed.

A pro-British Arab monarch from the Sunni Muslim minority was imposed on the Shia Muslim majority, and Iraq became independent in 1932. British officials stayed to advise the king along with squadrons of British air force bombers to quell internal opposition.

Britain again invaded Iraq during World War II, when a pro-German regime seized power in 1941. British air force units, based in Iraq, bombed the Iraqi forces until British troops occupied Baghdad. Some 3,000 Iraqi troops were killed in the fighting.

London sought to retain influence in Iraq, but the monarchy was ousted in 1958, ushering in a series of coups that culminated with Saddam Hussein coming to power.

Thus ended what historians have described as Britain's "moment in the Middle East."


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: britain; irak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 03/06/2003 8:17:27 PM PST by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: a_Turk; 11B3; 2Trievers; alethia; AM2000; another cricket; ARCADIA; Archie Bunker on steroids; ...
ping
2 posted on 03/06/2003 8:18:14 PM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Everything the Brits have done in the middle east from WW1 thru 1950 caused 99% of the problems we are dealing with now

Just my opinion

3 posted on 03/06/2003 8:24:14 PM PST by Ford Fairlane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
And the point is? Thanks anyway, the article was interesting.
4 posted on 03/06/2003 8:29:44 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
>> And the point is?

No point, other than education. Most have no clue about the history. Hell, I hear that Irak is thousands of years old :^D

Certainly not meant to sleight you..
5 posted on 03/06/2003 8:31:32 PM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ford Fairlane
There may be a lesson in it for you..

I'm not saying you won't but what makes you think you'll do any better?
6 posted on 03/06/2003 8:32:48 PM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sphinx; Toirdhealbheach Beucail; curmudgeonII; roderick; Notforprophet; river rat; csvset; ...
Some historical perspective on Iraq (a little anti-British AP warning)

If you want on or off the Western Civilzation Military History ping list, let me know.
7 posted on 03/06/2003 8:37:22 PM PST by Sparta (ANSWER, the new Communist conspiracy for the twenty-first century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
in the long run, we probably wont do much better
8 posted on 03/06/2003 8:38:18 PM PST by Ford Fairlane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Thanks for the ping Sparta.
9 posted on 03/06/2003 8:40:18 PM PST by SAMWolf (We do not bargain with terrorists, we stalk them, corner them , take aim and kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ford Fairlane
We're here to help :)
10 posted on 03/06/2003 8:41:49 PM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
As far as I'm concerned, you can have it all if you keep things quiet over there (and sell me $0.75/gal gas for my musclecars)
11 posted on 03/06/2003 8:44:51 PM PST by Ford Fairlane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
But I thought there was an "Iraqi" people! Great Leader Bush speaks of them as if they are one big homogenous group like the Germans and Japanese we brought democracy to after WWII? You mean it is more complicated than that? That Iraq is not even a real nation? That it has zero history of Democracy or western influence like the Germans and Japs did for decades? Iraq has different ethnic groups and religious sects and tribes that hate each other? But The Leader said . . .
12 posted on 03/06/2003 8:47:06 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ford Fairlane
Hey, I said help.. They've gotto govern themselves as a result.
13 posted on 03/06/2003 8:51:12 PM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
The age of nation states is over. I agree with Bush. The concept of nation states fails because it promotes a certain isolation and allows ignorance to fester.

Both Turkey and the USA are made up of multitudes of ethnic groups. It works. No reason it can't work in Irak.
14 posted on 03/06/2003 8:53:38 PM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ford Fairlane
Agreed! Now be a good chap and put the tea on, will you? ;)
15 posted on 03/06/2003 8:54:39 PM PST by Hazzardgate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Of course there is an Iraqi people, in the same sense as there is an american people. What is a government? "Government is a monopoly on the first use of force over a certain geographical area." And the people who live in that government are the people associated with it. Ethnicity is different, but the US works well with Polish Americans, Irish Americans, even Texicans. The Kurds in Turkey are called "Mountain Turks" and the Pashtun tribes in Afganistan and Pakistan move easily across borders,(too easily!).

The most famous Arab general of the Crusades, Saladin, was an ethnic Kurd. All successful nations have the ability to recognize merit (say, Miquel Estrada) despite ethnic differences. Even the Soviet Union, did this when it was young (J. Stalin was Georgian). Course uncle Joe pulled up the gate after him pretty well.
16 posted on 03/06/2003 9:03:50 PM PST by donmeaker (Time is Relative, at least in my family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
You don't know much of Germany if you think it is ethnically pure. They used to say that the average German was thin like Goering, blonde like Hitler, tall like Gobbels. Germany has been a cross roads, and various people have left their mark in its gene pool.

What does a German do when depressed?
The Rhinelander gets a new girl friend.
The Berliner goes dancing.
The Thurigarian goes to church.
The Baltic Coaster goes out sailing.
The Hessian goes for a walk in the woods.
The Prussian works harder.
The Black Forester carves wood.
The Bavarian gets drunk.
The Austrian shoots himself.

See, vast differences!
17 posted on 03/06/2003 9:08:56 PM PST by donmeaker (Time is Relative, at least in my family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ford Fairlane
Don't forget the French or the Germans, who supported a coup in Baghdad and backed the Turks in WWI.

There's a difference between then and now. The Ottoman Empire ruled the area for what, 600 years. They may have been incompetent, but they were Moslem. Iraq was coming out of a long decline and foreign rule. Today, Iraq has been ruled by Iraqis for decades. The bloom is off that rose. It is clear today, that the choice for every society is modernism or die. America is the fountainhead of modernism.

We're not bringing Empire or American control. We're looking to set up Iraqi self-government. There are some options within that self-government that are off the table, just like in post-WWII Germany, some political options were unacceptable. Within those wide limits, it Iraqi self-government.

We'll see how it goes. The problem is that if it fails, we're going to end up having to kill a heck of a lot more Arabs and Muslims, than if this plan to drain the Islamic cultural swamp succeeds. Pray for success, especially, if you are antiwar.

18 posted on 03/06/2003 9:15:40 PM PST by Jabba the Nutt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Interesting (and would be funny if I knew the nuances of German geographic idiosychroncies). Americans have the same regional jokes but share the same history, religion (with mildly differing Christion sects for the most part), language, and political culture. That is not true of Iraq which is an artificial colonial nation held together throughout it's history either by British imperial forces or a dictator from Baghdad using terror methods (like Sadaam today).
19 posted on 03/06/2003 9:23:44 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Thanks- Now Bush just has to tell it to the rest of the world- "Nation states are over- US rules- get used to it. No Sovereign nation but The USA!" Insanity. I love this Country (we are not a nation) and I weep to see us embark on this course of ruin. Read Edmund Burke and his opinions and speeches condemning the British actions against the American colonies as they would only lead to the worst case scenerio. I fear this country is heading into a giant hole and the conservative movement will be discredited by the lies of this administration (and the conservative opinion makers I once respected) for generations to come.
20 posted on 03/06/2003 9:41:53 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Torie; a_Turk
And the point is? Thanks anyway, the article was interesting.

It was a simple history lesson FRiend. This war will not resemble one from so long ago.

All will want to be America's friends when this one is over,..when Iraqi's and Kurds are praising our names for their liberation. Then, given some time, the Turks will see that the Kurdistans have no wish to fight them, but to rebuild their OWN country. (now, let the debate begin on WHY that shouldn't happen,..I'm waiting and fully expect my Turkish friend to explain why that wouldn't be a good idea). FRegards, Vets

21 posted on 03/07/2003 12:16:14 AM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife
Can't reward feudal leaders who support terrorists with legitemacy. Once the Iraki Kurds are aware enough to demand and execute proper elections, maybe they'll be ready for their sovereignty.
22 posted on 03/07/2003 4:29:45 AM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Edumakashune? I dun needs no edumakashunes! :-)
23 posted on 03/07/2003 4:34:21 AM PST by Valin (Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Don't know if you saw this.
'When Will Americans Come?'
Here in northern Iraq, they're getting impatient for freedom.

BY ASLA AYDINTASBAS
Wednesday, March 5, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

IRBIL, Northern Iraq--It is hard to imagine another place where Americans are more popular these days. "We like the son of 'Haji Bush,' because he will fight Saddam for us," a young Kurdish driver tells me plain and simple. Others--young and old, Kurdish or Turkmen, shopkeepers and politicians--echo similar sentiments about ending the reign of brutality in Baghdad.

Iraqis inside government-controlled areas have quietly nicknamed President Bush "Abu Abdallah," an endearing name, or "Abu Jinan"--a pun on "Father of Jenna"--meaning "Father of Paradises." A well-known religious leader at the central mosque in the regional capital, Suleimaniyah, says "I welcome even the Jew Sharon if he can liberate us from Saddam." In fact, just about the only people who oppose a war on the Iraqi dictator here seem to be the Western journalists who have flocked to the Irbil Towers Hotel to await its arrival. Why are the Iraqi voices still so distant for the chattering classes in the West?




Iraqis once exiled in various corners of the world met here last week to launch their long-awaited opposition conference. Much of the media has focused on whether or not Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. envoy, would make it to the event. But that almost seems irrelevant. With or without American participation, the Iraqis here say they are ready to reclaim their country in the final war of liberation.
This is not simple rhetoric. After all, these people were effectively fighting Saddam Hussein and designing a democratic transition long before Washington warmed to the idea. The roughly seven million Iraqis who live outside the regime's control--in exile, or in the Kurdish safe havens in the north--have developed strong democratic traditions which they now want to transplant inside the country. In the smoke-filled meeting rooms, conferences and workshops in London, Washington or northern liberated Iraq, they have been discussing Iraq's new constitution, the "de-Baathification" of its institutions, truth and reconciliation, and disarmament. One exile admits that they are looking at Germany's de-Nazification, and even at the Federalist papers.

"Despite what many in the West say, the Iraqis are largely in agreement about the fundamental issues of transitional democracy," says Kanan Makiya, the Brandeis University professor and Iraqi author. "Sure, there are still some who rely on the army and see change as a top-down process, perhaps a coup that maintains the repressive institutions of the regime, rather than the rebuilding. But these people are not here and in any case constitute a minority at this point."

Along with Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, Mr. Makiya is one of the architects of the transitional period. Here in the northern part of the country where he has been living for a month, it is amusing to watch the Cambridge intellectual interact with Shiite clerics, resistance fighters, and tribal leaders. But everyone has a unique role within the resistance and Mr. Makiya's moral authority, and Mr. Chalabi's leadership skills, are apparent to a passing observer.

An exuberant force exudes from the Iraqis braving for the final push. At the main conference hall in the Kurdish town of Selahaddin, where the opposition meeting is taking place, all talk is of post-Saddam life. "I am dreaming of Baghdad," a giant of a man, a former member of the elite Republican Guard who joined the opposition in 1993, tells me. The other day, there was a homecoming party for resistance fighters who are secretly returning from Detroit, London, and the Netherlands for the final day of reckoning. Every little scene--old friends embracing; a debate about the national anthem of free Iraq; the arrival of a secret envoy from a large tribe in the government-controlled areas--is strangely touching. The mountain air is brisk with confidence.

The mood of the street is not too different. Outside Baghdad's reach, the two self-governing Kurdish enclaves here have established relatively free societies. There is all you cannot find in Baghdad--freedom from Iraqi intelligence, satellite TV, Internet cafes, cell phones and a lively media environment. Yet so long as Saddam remains in power, the experiment here will remain vulnerable. There will also be no justice done for the millions killed or scarred by Saddam's aggression. The images of antiwar demonstrations across Europe could not look more meaningless in this context. The other night, a young hotel employee asked me emphatically: "Why do people in Europe want Saddam?" It was not a rhetorical question.




To understand the level of devastation caused by Baghdad, one need only walk in any major city in the U.S.-patrolled enclave in Northern Iraq. Every conversation beyond a few pleasantries ultimately unearths the story of a lost brother, or son, or relatives killed in one of the regime's many purges--or a brush with death during a chemical attack. The level of violence once unleashed here, and currently endured by many Iraqis in government areas, is surreal by Western standards. The Anfal campaign of 1988-89 alone claimed more than 100,000 lives in a year of organized ethnic cleansing.
Last week in Suleimaniyah, the former headquarters of the Iraqi secret police reopened as a museum dedicated to human rights. There, a Kurdish woman in her 30s whispered that she does not want Americans to liberate Baghdad. She was the only one to say so in my two weeks here. "My father was taken away in 1988 with all other men and we are still hoping that one day he might come. If Americans kill Saddam and father does not come back at the end, we will have no hope to keep going."

But of hope and healing, there is also plenty. I visited a Turkmen family, forced to leave its ancestral hometown of Kirkuk in 1991 as part of Iraq's "Nationality Correction" campaign, ethnically cleansing the city of Turks and Kurds. The couple and their nine kids live in a shack with a plastic sheet for a roof. "We are hoping to go back to our home very soon," the father told me defiantly. Once well-off, the family has secured their property deeds with relatives who managed to escape deportation by either agreeing to be registered as Arabs or having sons enter the Baath Party.

The steadfastness and yearning for freedom here may not make its way into the news stories, but it will ultimately reshape this nation. Policy makers in Washington should stop worrying about every little detail that might go wrong in the war or post-Saddam period; for it is abundantly clear to anyone here on the ground that Saddam's house will be dismantled by Saddam's citizens, and army, and bureaucrats, and scientists. In fact, during my time here, free Iraqis in the north and the occasional visitors from the yet-to-be-liberated parts kept asking the same question, "When are the Americans coming?" Really, when will they come?

Ms. Aydintasbas, a writer for the Turkish daily Sabah, is an adjunct fellow at the Western Policy Center in Washington.

24 posted on 03/07/2003 4:45:59 AM PST by Valin (Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Valin
I read that. People there deservedly need a break. Their leaders, however, need their backs broken..
25 posted on 03/07/2003 4:48:47 AM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ford Fairlane
The Middle East and other areas of the Ottoman Empire would have been less troublesome if the Turks have been left in charge.
26 posted on 03/07/2003 4:50:36 AM PST by Edmund Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Yugoslavia was also created after WWI. Today it no longer exists. The same thing will happen to Iraq.
27 posted on 03/07/2003 4:56:13 AM PST by Edmund Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Edmund Burke
I forgot to also mention Czechoslovakia. Same result.
28 posted on 03/07/2003 4:57:07 AM PST by Edmund Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
I do wonder if the two kurdish groups will start fighting each other.
(For what it's worth) I am of the opinion the one of the reasons saddam is still amoung the living and sitting in Bagdad is the Bush team has been getting their ducks in a row for a post-saddam Iraq. I hope that they will be successful. As Tom Friedman says, On day three that's when things get interesting.
29 posted on 03/07/2003 5:47:24 AM PST by Valin (Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Edmund Burke
The Ottoman Empire had a good run but in the end they got calcified. IMO the only reason it lasted as long as it did was there was really no reason to take them out.
30 posted on 03/07/2003 5:51:39 AM PST by Valin (Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Valin
>> I do wonder if the two kurdish groups will start fighting each other.

They were fighting and we brokered the peace..
31 posted on 03/07/2003 6:41:07 AM PST by a_Turk (Lookout, lookout,, the candyman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Edmund Burke
It's all a plot by the atlas industry. ;^)

Stasis is not an option, except for the dead.
32 posted on 03/07/2003 6:41:12 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Thanks for the ping.
33 posted on 03/07/2003 6:57:17 AM PST by MattinNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
From what I understand the only thing these two groups agree on is saddam is bad. I just hope that :men of good will" will prevail.
As I said I believe one of the reasons this is still going on is the Bush team rying to gat all the parties on the same page.
34 posted on 03/07/2003 7:07:46 AM PST by Valin (Age and deceit beat youth and skill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
This is an extremely distorted history of Iraq, passing over the events between 1930 and 1958, the pro-Nazi government and the totatlitarian and anti-Semitic roots of the Baath party.

The main difference between the US and Britain is that we have no wish to govern Iraq as a colony. That in itself could be a problem, however, in that only the British Army, authoritarian kings and totalitarian dictators have succeeded in governing the awkward grouping of Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmens and Chaldeans.

35 posted on 03/07/2003 8:34:22 AM PST by colorado tanker (beware the Ides of March)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Edmund Burke
Yep- correct. Though US forces will be in Iraq- they really won't. If the US occupation of Kosovo is any indication- then our troops will be in bases far removed from population centers and protected by miles of no pass zones. When they do go on patrol it will be in no less than half company strength, in armored vehichles with helicopter gunship support - in other words just a show of force and no real police keeping function. Kosovo is a warlords and crime lords paradise. As long as they don't kill people in more than threes or make headlines- we leave them alone to terrorize their people. The same thing will occur in a "democratic" Iraq which will devolve to tribal and religious war on a low level (while maybe the Kurds will ratchet it up in Turkey).
36 posted on 03/08/2003 8:43:19 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Maybe you could explain your solution to the Iraq situation.
37 posted on 03/08/2003 9:01:47 PM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I do not see the occupation of Iraq anlagous to Kosovo. The taking of Baghdad is part of a strategy. The occupation of Kosovo is x42 wag-the-dog initiated by a man that never meant to cash his check.
38 posted on 03/08/2003 9:13:25 PM PST by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
I am not sure Bush can withdraw at this point, especially after that lackluster performance the other night. But If I had my druthers we never would have put down the gaunlet against Iraq. But then again- if I was the President I would attempt to withdraw from the UN, Withdraw from Nato, take our troops home from Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and every other foreign nation, invest a whole bunch in a missle defense program for the borders of the US and have good trading relations with every nation on Earth. But I guess that is called "Isolationist".
39 posted on 03/08/2003 9:18:42 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Spruce
And Bush campaigned for a more restrained foreign policy as opposed to the disgusting personal use of the military that Clinton routinely engaged in to save his hide. Make no mistake- Bush is a good man at heart and not corrupt but he is being led down a path to ruin. Clinton- well- he is so unspeakable that he warrants another thread.
40 posted on 03/08/2003 9:24:50 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Spruce
When Clinton bombed Kosovo for 78 days- there were protests all over Europe that rivaled or surpassed the protests against Bush now. Were they covered in our press? No! In fact- Clinton's Kosovo bombing campaign was the De Facto end of Nato. It was an embarassment and a shame on this nation that Europe never forgot. And Bush is paying the price now.
41 posted on 03/08/2003 9:33:07 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I do not believe America is now walking a path of destruction. For many years our country actively chose to not only ignore the grand game we are in, they thought it was over. Our current leaders not only know the game, they are playing it well.
42 posted on 03/08/2003 9:37:42 PM PST by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
invest a whole bunch in a missle defense program for the borders of the US

Could you explain the use of a missle defense program against someone armed with boxcutters?

How would it stop someone armed with a vial of smallpox?

It's a different game my friend. I agree with much of what you say, however I do not think that we can isolate ourselves from people that want to kill us just because we represent a lifestyle that they oppose on a religious basis.

I do not agree with everything that President Bush does, but I do believe we need to shut down that terrorist shopping mall in Iraq.

43 posted on 03/08/2003 9:41:08 PM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Spruce
Perhaps.

But I think the further we involve ourselves in the Mid East (and they are insane and not ready for democracy of any sort) the further we sink more lives, treasure, and resources of our Country.

44 posted on 03/08/2003 9:41:23 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
Could you explain the use of a missle defense program against someone armed with boxcutters?

You just made my point! Thank you! Bush was all about WMD the other night and the WTC was brought down by box cutters and yet we are going to fight a "war against terrorism"! What the heck does Iraq have to do with the box cutters that took 3000 American lives? Anything?

Did Sadaam buy the box cutters for a buck a piece? We still let in hundreds of Islamic immigrants every day in this country. Even more pass through Mexico and yet Bush does nothing? NOt one of 9/11 was from Iraq. If Iraq does have chemical or bio weapons (and I belive they do) why wouldnt Sadaam pass them on this week to Al QUeda since he knows we are coming for him? ANd if he does and 100,000 die say in Boston will you say Bush was wrong?

45 posted on 03/08/2003 9:52:10 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
Agreed. But this nest of Vipers needs to be taken care of. It has festered long enough. And at the same time we are learning much about our "allies".
46 posted on 03/08/2003 10:05:12 PM PST by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Spruce
We are an idealistic people and have always been. We need to grow up and take care of our needs like France and Germany are doing now. They oppose our action against Iraq because we will be seated on the second largest oil reserve in the world. Even if they joined us in this action we would still dominate and call the shots in Iraq. They know this. And we know this. That is why Bush never answered those questions directly the other night. THis is big- if we go to war against Iraq we are alone in the world save for some paltry allies and the rest of the world will be against us in a cold war fashion.
47 posted on 03/08/2003 10:14:51 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
You just made my point! Thank you!

I fail to see how I have "made your point," but if you say so, you're welcome.

I don't believe we should wait until Sadaam sells some of these WMDs to some terrorist fruitcake to use against us. If he is unwilling to destroy these weapons, we should assist him.

I believe we should shut down our borders and stop this flow of illegals into our country.

48 posted on 03/08/2003 10:21:31 PM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I would hardly call Great Britain or Spain "paltry". The world is going to be changed more than the Fall of the Wall. Major pieces are being moved and the Franco-German-Russia gambit has been slain. It is up to America to decide how "honorably" we allow them to walk away. I say grind them and let them play the fool longer.
49 posted on 03/08/2003 10:23:36 PM PST by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: alaskanfan
I don't believe we should wait until Sadaam sells some of these WMDs to some terrorist fruitcake to use against us. If he is unwilling to destroy these weapons, we should assist him.

And when we say we will settle for nothing less than his death or regime change why wouldn't he sell or even just give WMD to Al Queda? What does he have to lose? In fact- Once Bush labeled the "Axis of Evil" why not increase the pace of nuke development in all those countries? What do they have to lose since the US anounced under Clinton (and never revoked under Bush) the right to intervene anywhere at anytime.

My family has not had a participant in war since WWI- (my Grandfather- yes he was 54 when my dad was born) and my dad was in military "intelligence"- quotation marks are his as he hated it. But lets ponder this venture fellow freepers. Ponder it. Estrada is far more important in the long run than this war.

50 posted on 03/08/2003 10:33:27 PM PST by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson