PRESIDENT BUSH AGREES TO MORE INSPECTORS

(AP) Washington DC Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:00 AM


President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack Iraq. The President has announced that as of today, he is agreeing to additional inspectors to be deployed throughout the country of Iraq.

We will be sending 250,000 additional inspectors into Iraq. The additional inspectors will include: 24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division 15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) 15,000 members of the 82d Airborne Division

More than 5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their "M1-A1 all-terrain vehicles" Additional U. S. Army personnel, as needed for inspections A variety of U. S. Air Force personnel for aerial recon missions and their "surveillance" activities A significant number of United States Marines to aid with inspections United States Coast Guard personnel to inspect coastlines An undisclosed number of Rangers, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Recon Marines, Delta Force, and other Special Operations personnel to inspect Iraqi "hide-aways" Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft from the USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise. B52s, B1s and B2s will aid in uncovering previously hidden assets in underground storage areas. The President stated:
"With these additional inspectors, the inspections should be completed in a few weeks."


-- Staff

That is sooooo true.  And, these inspectors will definitely not be half-stepping.  If the "Shock and Awe" strategy works, the battle will be over by opening day.  God Bless America, and God bless the new 'inspectors'.  

I find myself more in agreement with Jessica Tuchman Matthews ( http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/inspections.html ) and John Brady Kiesling ( http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/kiesling.html )

Or as the Toronto Star ( http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0318-02.htm ) said:

-------------------------------------------------

"There is no legal basis for war," says Ted McWhinney, a former Liberal MP, professor and expert on international law. "None. That was clear from the beginning."

That the very nations which spearheaded efforts to rein in an outlaw state should themselves become outlaws is a rich, if tragic, irony. It will be appreciated as such in most countries, although possibly not in the U.S. where irony, like French toast, has been declared unpatriotic.

Yet this is what has happened. Iraq, a country that for 12 years did defy and obstruct the international community, is now seen by much of the world as a helpless victim. Even the villainous Saddam Hussein is viewed almost — almost — sympathetically.

----------------------------------

To me Bush's obsession with Saddam seems like Captain Ahab's obsession with Moby Dick, the great white whale.

Military victory may occur in days, but the army will have to occupy Iraq for years ( http://www.carlisle.army.mil/teasers/teaser3mar03-CSL.htm ). I am very afraid of the consequences of that occupation (including the possible fall of the present government of Pakistan and increased terrorism).

To quote Yoda from Star Wars II, "Victory? Not a victory. Begun it has."


-- Modified on 3/18/2003 6:55:53 PM

Or alternatively, for a potential future of what may be in store for us if the Bush juggernaut takes aim next at Iran and North Korea and these countries refuse to roll over, read Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" (1964).

On second thought, Staff, maybe you're right...highly amusing, indeed. What did John Cougar Mellenkamp say, "...Rain on the scarecrow, blood on the plow..."

So...Wonder what'll happen if they find no WMDs.  Could get quite interesting (assuming it's actually reported).

great post there STAFF.  we should have finished this long long ago when we had the chance.

I don't find the current situation amusing either, but to liken Bush to Ahab is going too far in the other direction.  The current Iraq is one brutal Stalinist regime that won't be missed.

To think that Saddam should be viewed with sympathy is beyond the pale.  What next, "Flowers for Pol Pot"?

-- Modified on 3/18/2003 9:12:12 PM

That isn't the question. He is not the only brutal dictator in the world. In fact, I don't think he was any less brutal than when we were supporting him against Iran.

To me the questions seem to be:
1. Is Saddam a clear and present danger to the United States?
2. Can he be disarmed without going to war?

I think that the threat of war was useful. I doubt that Hussein would have allowed the inspectors into Irag or given them even minimal cooperation without the threat of military action.

However, when it became apparent to the whole world that Bush intended to invade whether or not Saddam disarmed the incentive for disarming vanished.

I think Robin Cook's statement "Why I Had to Leave the Cabinet" printed in the Guardian/UK ( http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0318-05.htm ) is informative.

Nothing like the expectation of an ass kicking to get that old competitive American "can do" juices flowing... I can see it now.. Next to the Iraqi Oil fields, signs of Chevron, Shell, Mobil, etc.   Ah.. the spoils of war...

After we are done turning Iraq into our personal gas pump we need to deal with that midget in North Korea...  

I say Nuke the bastards.. Of course we need to pull out our troops first. What about the destruction of Seoul? Well I guess I can buy my electronic toys from other Asian countries? Let the chinese deal with the fall-out I say..

Then of course their is Iran.. I see a great land area for a parking lot, and shopping centers..  All problems solved.  Everybody happy right? Well some of our Arab friends might not be happy, but hey we are the worlds only superpower right? And we have the hardware, to back it up right? We tell them to visit North Korea after we are through radiating it, and then ask them if they have any  complaints. Its a tough Darwinian world out there.


Just remember what Patton said... " The object of war is not to die for your country...  The object of war is to make the other poor dumb basterd die for his country..."

-- Modified on 3/18/2003 11:35:01 PM

-- Modified on 3/18/2003 11:37:18 PM

"Let them hate so long as they fear." The quote is attributed to Roman tragic poet Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC). It is believed to be a favorite saying of the notorious Emperor Caligula.

Although your analogy of the new millenial U.S. to the Roman Empire is a good one (see latest Doonesbury cartoons), I saw one editorial that emphasized a relationship to the old Spanish Empire of the 16th Century that reached it's zenith under King Phillip. Then, the engine of the Spanish Empire was fed by the enslavement of the Indian populations in the New World, and the looted gold that paid for the Spanish armies and armada.

Spain became so powerful and dominant that the other European countries were forced to band together to counter it. A similar phenomenon, the rise of America as the only "superpower", may account for why Chirac of France had so little problem uniting Germany, Russia and China and most of the rest of the world. Is it because Chirac is such a consummate politician? Or is it because these nations fear an unchecked, American hegemony.

It's important to remember that, as with all other colonial powers (i.e., French and British empires), things ended badly for the Spanish empire.

-- Modified on 3/19/2003 4:58:56 AM

-- Modified on 3/19/2003 4:59:38 AM

-- Modified on 3/19/2003 5:00:22 AM

of war became less credible, the incentive for Saddam that you mention would have gone away.  Saber-rattling by the UN would have become increasingly less effective as a means for motivating Saddam to cooperate with the inspection process

of "old Europe" oppose.  

A couple of points I would make:

Are the people in the countries currently ruled by dictators which we "liberate" likely to enjoy more or less political freedom after we invade them and set up puppet governments?  I would say that they will have more political freedom, not less.
This will come at the cost of many of their lives, as freedom has always come at a heavy price.

All empires end badly, just as all non-empires end badly (and just as every professional sports team manager is destined to lose his job by being fired, LOL).  The Spanish and British empires had good, long runs.  If they had it to over again, do you think they would not have done it?

Totally agree with you. You are right that is probably a better analogy. Most people can relate to the Roman Empire and that it did fall. It also invokes more of an image of conquerers.

I am glad you could see through my post as something sarcastic and not serious..

We have alot of rebuilding to do after the short war. How we are viewed in the world is going to depend alot on how successful we are in really helping Iraq transform itself...

They better find WMDs.  If they are non-existent, then Bush is a war criminal as far as I am concerned...


But I am 100% confident that they will not only find them, but that in a defient act of desperation and hatred, Hussein will use them not only on us, but his own people...

jackvance makes some very good points, and I would expect nothing less from the putative author of the great "Demon Princes".

As Jeff Stilson has pointed out, "Everything has a shelf life," and this would also apply to all governments. Nothing lasts forever, a point which applies as equally to the present George W. regime as it does to the soon to be defunct Saddam Hussein rule of Iraq.

With regard to the British and French colonial empires, it is undoubtedly true that some in these countries made great fortunes (e.g., East India Tea Company). The U.K. and France were able to tap into the huge natural resources of third-world countries, but the costs of empire were staggering. They required huge standing armies and navies, necessary for both subjugating native populations (e.g., the British Raj in India) and defending the colonies from invaders.

In the end, the economics of empire hasn't worked out for anyone. The Brits were eager to divest their empire in the 20th century, and the French suffered enormously from terrorist attacks in the '60's during the Algeria crisis. Ironically, Chirac is now hailed as a great hero by the same Muslim populations that reviled DeGaulle.

Until just recently, the U.S. model of encouraging global trade and capitalism has seemed superior. The U.S. has been able to tap into the world's natural resources without the need to seize it with use of large armies. In other words, we got all the goodies without the "sturm und drag".

Now, unfortunately, we have the "sturm und drang", and if Saddam Hussein carries through on his threats, we may also lose the goodies (e.g., oil fields) for some time.

Last, I think there's some issue as to whether the U.S. would really tolerate a true democracy in Iraq, especially if they "voted" for a fundamental Islamic regime. I think it's more likely that the post-war Iraqi government can be anything it wants, as long as they do what we tell them.

If we use Afghanistan as the model of bringing democracy to an arab country, then they're not getting any more freedom.

The central government only controls Kabul.  The Taliban control the south and warlords control the rest of the north.  We've taken out the Taliban, but the same islamic laws are enforced.  But now, there isn't the modicum of law and order the Taliban provided.  Not to mention there's no plans for any elections.

Yes, George W. has the same resolve and courage of his convictions as did the secular rulers during the religious crusades...which is why the Muslim populations in the Middle East are so scared and opposed to him.

If you haven't already checked it out, the beta version of "Google News" gives a good sampling of international news from all perspectives, including the Arab viewpoint.

Saddam my attempt to use his WMD, but will his troops follow the orders?  I think not, the reason the first Gulf ended so quickly and this one will too is that the Iraqi people have NOTHING TO FIGHT FOR!

Saddam has be able to sell oil (supposedly) for food and medical supplies, but the money has gone to garish Mosques (in his honor) and to rebuild his military all the while his people (and children) die from starvation and lack of medical supplies.  

I predict that within two weeks of first Tomahawk launch that the citizens of Iraq will be waving American Flags and thanking President Bush for liberating them.

I predict that within two years they will hate us again!  After all they are pretty close with the French.  However, they won't have the ability to do us massive harm, we can deal with hate bombs!

Finally I predict that France, Germany and Russia will come around and want to take credit for Iraq's liberation.

One last thing, the United Nations is inept  in almost everything they do.  Where was the UN while Pol Pot was murdering MILLIONS of his people?  The list of genicide's that the UN has ignored is too long to post here.  If I was king, I would withdraw from the UN and kick their asses out of New York.

All this war talk has made me horney, I think I check the recent reviews!  Happy Hobbying!

I'm still looking for an interesting article that was written by Alistair Cook from the BBC on the parallels between WWII and the present situation.  Not all that much has changed in the political posturing and positioning of the various nations...

France demanded more proof of what was going on with Germany and wanted to negotiate, until the point that tanks rolled through Paris with German flags on them and they were utterly overrun and defeated. End of negotiations.

I’ve read numerous opinions on whether this war is about oil, and whether France and Germany are so economically tied to Iraqi trade that their positions are poisoned by financial self-interest, to the DUH statements/opinions that war is bad and people will die. Opinions keep flowing from all sectors and segments of the world with their own political agendas, religious, human rights and other various belief systems.  We all have opinions of our own based on whatever gathering of knowledge or lack of knowledge forms our thoughts.  Mine are as follows:

#1 Yes, Saddam is a clear and present danger to the U.S. and it's interests within and outside the U.S. borders.  

#2 I'm hoping that was a rhetorical question, but just in case, NO, he can't be disarmed without intervention.  It doesn't take much critical thinking to understand that after 12 years plus 4 1/2 months no actual progress has been made in disarming, and a further year won't make a difference in that.

What was apparent was that Saddam was never going to disarm.  So the act of going in to force him to disarm was academic at that best.  The question of “Why now?” has me immensely curious. My brain itches with remembrance of 9/11/2000 and how many potential connections exist to that region and that act as well as the acts threatened yet.

If removing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WPM) from the hands of irrational dictators is your goal, then your priorities are screwed up.

The only WPM that truly threaten the U.S. are nuclear weapons. It is clear from the UN Arms Inspection and the forged Niger documents that that there is no credible evidence of a Iraqi nuclear weapons program. George W's willingness to attack Saddam Hussein is itself a confirmation of Iraqi's lack of nuclear weapons. If not, boy are we in for one nasty surprise.

The true threats to the U.S. are: 1) North Korea, which has at least two nukes and the capability of rolling 2 per month, with their plutonium facility up and running. Last time I checked, N. Korea is also both verbally threatening us and shooting test missiles; 2) Iran, which divulged evidence of a very advanced nuclear weapons program, no doubt to stave off a future attack from the U.S.; and 3) Pakistan, which if it falls to the Islamic fundamentalists, has an arsenal of over 20 nukes. The Muslim population of Pakistan have been strong supporters of both Al Qaida and the Taliban.

It looks irrational to me for the U.S. to be going after Iraq for "imagined" weapons of mass destruction, to the exclusion of these real threats. In fact our take-home message to emerging third-world countries is exactly the wrong one: If you don't want to be attacked by the U.S., get your nukes and plenty of them.

that's truly a great post. Couldn't have said it better.

thank you for bringing Robin's Cook statement to our attention. I think it's beautifully written, and it states clearly the situation as seen from outside the US.

I wish it helps people understand that the problem is not France being a sneaky backstabbing ba$tard, but something deeper and widespread.

The simple fact is, if they have destroyed the weapons they had previously, there would not only be evidence of that destruction, but the Iraqi's should have been falling all over themselves to establish the proof.  As we've seen, not only has the evidence of that destruction not been found, they haven't been doing any falling all over themselves to establish that proof.  What they have been falling all over themselves doing is posturing and threatening and continue to do so, not just to our military but to our civilian population in the form of threats of terrorist type activities.

Yes, North Korea, and Pakistan are issues the US still have to deal with in the future, but that doesn’t take away from the current situation in Iraq.  France has an open policy of espionage against the US.  So do other European countries.  How much of a threat does that pose to the US?  Threats come in many different forms and levels, politically, economically, and security. You and I can postulate all we want about who we perceive as the greatest or nearest threat, however given the lack of adequate information and intelligence that doesn’t go very far.

That's so true. And now Bush has painted himself into a corner and he HAS to have a war.

And the US does not have a policy of espionage against the European countries? Get real. It has been public knowledge for years that the US uses its Echelon network in the UK to do just that. That was even debated in the European Parliament.

Anyway if tiny little France poses a threat to the Allmighty US, let's just nuke it.

I am real.  I didn't state anywhere that the US does not engage in espionage, but thanks for playing.   (For some reason the phrase "strain at a gnat and swallow the camel" comes to mind) France poses a threat only to themselves.  They're not a world power either militarily or economically, so the only threat they pose is in the amount of rhetoric they can build up.  And no one is hurt by rhetoric.

Anytime something is quoted in the Guardian/UK, I don't even bother to read it anymore.   That paper has shown how it is so anti-Semitic, I might as well be reading the Protocols of The Elders of Zion.

Saddam violated the truce agreement of '91 by not disarming.  Enough reason for me to put him down.

I, for one, don't want to wait to see what else this nut can do.  Another building has to fall (yes, I live in Manhattan -- 3 miles north of Ground Zero) and **then** we can finally make a connection between Al Quaeda and Hussein?  This flea bed of a dictator already gives $25K to each family of a Palestinian suicide bomber -- that is definitely in support of terrorism.  Have we 100% proven a link between Hussein and Al Quaeda?  I don't think we have, but given his penchant for brutality, defying 17 UNSCRs over 12 years, and violating our peace treaty with him, why do we want to treat him with sympathy?

He has to go. Now.

well thanks to you I learnt a new expression today. I'm so relieved that France won't have to be nuked. But what about Irak? Are they a world power either economically or militarily that they are a threat to the US ?