It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq, a master stroke of military strategy

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
I think the point is no country should be invading any other country to seize their oil, period!

Is this thread about how a very very bad thing has been executed very well?


No, because that is not what the war in Iraq was about. That is your mistaken assumption/opinion.

Frankly, if this war were about oil, we would have gone into Iran. There is no doubt about that one. There was ample justification, and they have far more oil.




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Likewise, you assume that the reason given to you for the invasion is correct, a reason that is fast losing any sense of credibility.

I reckon a straw poll would show most people believe the real reason was to secure energy reserves. Of course, for our governments this isn't a legitimate reason to invade, so they had to invent one.

As of 2003 Iraq's proven oil reserves were 112.500 billion barrels and Iran's 89.700 billion.

Suddenly in 2004 Iran's reserves have lept to 125.800 while Iraq's have increased modestly to 115.000 billion.

source: www.eia.doe.gov...

[edit on 7-11-2005 by uknumpty]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
Likewise, you assume that the reason given to you for the invasion is correct, a reason that is fast losing any sense of credibility.


No, see, that is where you are wrong. I am not of the opinion that there was a singular reason for going into Iraq, but rather a culmination of several unrelated issues that made military action in Iraq compelling.

I will not tell you or anyone else that oil played no part in our action, but just a small part.


I reckon a straw poll would show most people believe the real reason was to secure energy reserves.


Two things...

Firstly, I would not take the American publics beliefs as any kind of authority - quite the opposite actually.


Secondly, I believe you meant an anonymous poll. You "pick" straws and the person with the short one wins/loses.



Of course, for our governments this isn't a legitimate reason to invade, so they had to invent one.


Actually their reasons were in fact, completely legit and - ironically enough - in the legal sense completely justifiable. Saddam broke the stipulations of his peace treaty. There for, he got war.


As of 2003 Iraq's proven oil reserves were 112.500 billion barrels and Iran's 89.700 billion.

Suddenly in 2004 Iran's reserves have lept to 125.800 while Iraq's have increased modestly to 115.000 billion.


Interesting. Everything I have ever read has said that Iran had far more oil.

I'm going to have to do a bit of research on this.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
From wikipedia:




A straw poll is an informal type of voting where the results of the poll have little or no direct results, other than to gauge opinion. Straw polls are commonly used in American political caucuses, where the primary goals are to select delegates and vote on resolutions. The results of the straw polls may or may not influence the delegates as they participate in political conventions after the caucus.


Please stop being so Americo-centric. My straw poll would be international.

Regarding the war's legality, well Richard Perle (no friend of mine) declared it illegal back in 2003:


War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal





International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."


war justified under the interpretation they were doing the right thing!


Imagine every country and person just doing what it/they thought was right!?!

and this chap also said it was illegal:

Iraq war illegal, says Annan



The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by uknumpty]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
From wikipedia:




A straw poll is an informal type of voting where the results of the poll have little or no direct results, other than to gauge opinion. Straw polls are commonly used in American political caucuses, where the primary goals are to select delegates and vote on resolutions. The results of the straw polls may or may not influence the delegates as they participate in political conventions after the caucus.


I stand corrected



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty
Please stop being so Americo-centric. My straw poll would be international.


Well, if it makes you feel better, the same aplies to the rest of the damned world too, happy?


I used the American public because that is what I am most familiar with, and they would probably agree with you.


Regarding the war's legality...


Wow, one guy in the whole US defence industry and Kofi. Frankly, it is a proven fact that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program. That was justification enough.

As for the oil reserves:

It is clear that Iran is a bit ahead of Iraq, but when I said they had much more, I was thinking of gas reserves, not oil - my mistake on that one.

As for the reason for Irans jump over Iraq:




Iran's July 14 announcement of the world's second biggest oil field after Saudi Arabia's Ghawar development appears certain to change the global equation on oil production, to fatten Iran's strained foreign reserves, to involve it ever more deeply in the sticky problems of petroleum contact negotiations, and to present the country with problems as well as promise.


link

In any case I'm going to end this discussion here so as not to hijack Major Cees thread into a political one.

U2U me if you wish to continue this convo


[edit on 7-11-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Vagabond:

Just a few comments on your last comments:

I would like to comment a lot more and if we were
sitting at a table drinking coffee I suspect the
conversation would go on for a very long time.
However, though I will only comment on some of the
more important points:

The nuclear area is an important point that actually
redefined our number one priority in the war. At
first the priority was Al Qaeda. In about Oct of
2001 though a lot of information came out about Al
Qaeda possibly getting nuclear weapons. Friedman's
book gives the details in pretty good detail. There
were several areas where there was a fear of nukes
being given to Al Qaeda. One of them was Pakistan.
In this regard, Pakistan with some arm twisting
was persuaded to let US inspectors into their
facilities. This gives us the ability to inventory
their weapons and nuclear material. This assures us
that none is missing and this is an ongoing effort.
No weapons were suspected in Iraq, but the US believed
that Iraq had hid their program after the first gulf
war in violation of UN inspections and sanctions.
It was this very point that was the cause of the
break down of UN inspections the second time. Iraq
had refused proper interrogation of their nuclear
scientists. This refusal was thought to be evidence
that they had hid a program. In fact, it had been
hid, buried in the head scientist's garden. They
did not have any weapons but they had effectively
figured out the key problem, that of enriching the
uranium. This represented a giant step toward
building the bomb if they ever dug up the program
and continued. We knew that they had solved the
problem of enriching uranium because we confiscated
some enriched uranium from them after Gulf war I.
We really did not know though where a program was
hid and just how good it was. We only knew that
they stonewalled UN inspectors on the scientist
interview point. A really good book covers the
hidden program in great detail. The book is
"The bomb in my Garden". Anyway, with the fear
of nukes getting into Al Qaeda hands and the
Iraqis stonewalling on the nuclear issue, along
with all the other stuff it was the straw that
broke the camels back. I want to put up a thread
sometime on this, but I just haven't got around
to it.


Here is something that peaked my interest of yours:


My answer is simply that destroying a weapons program
does not require 2 years and 100,000 troops. We could
have made it a policy to completely and totally destroy
every installation which in even the slightest way hindered
the access of the inspectors.


I believe this is consistent with how we did the war.
Saddam had for 10 years resisted efforts that were
tried to nail down this nuclear program. The final
act in that regard was the refusal of interview of his
nuclear scientists. Saddam had an Air Force and an
Army of 400,000 to back up his stonewalling. Saddam
and sons refused the offer of leaving the country
and had an army and a plan for guerilla war in order
to stay. Maybe there was a better plan for getting
rid of him than what we did, which took about a few months
and all of our troops that we sent. If there was
better plan, nobody has ever presented it. Even you
seem to want to immediately send a large army to Afghanistan
immediately before even trying anything else. Yet
you don't see that sending the large army to Iraq
was a last resort after trying years for a less
dangerous solution.

Which of the two is more dangerous in the long run?
(1) Saddam left with an army of 400,000 and hidden
nuclear program that had solved 90% of the nuclear
bomb puzzle.
(2) A core of 200 guys hidden away in mountains in
Afghanistan with a plan to conquer the world by
steeling 757s and crashing them into skyscrapers.

Which one would you be more inclined to send an
army against of these two?
(1) One that you had tried everything else against
for 10 years.
(2) One that had volunteers to handle it for you
with minimal support.


On your comment that it might have been a lucky stroke
instead of a master stroke, you could be right. I
have nothing against being lucky though. In fact I
like the idea of being lucky.

Iraq, a Lucky Stroke of Military Strategy

Actually I think that would have worked just as good
as the way I worded.

You got me to talking so much on your last post that
I never did get to my second subject on your first
post. Maybe I can do that tomorrow.





[edit on 7-11-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by uknumpty
I think the point is no country should be invading any other country to seize their oil, period!

Is this thread about how a very very bad thing has been executed very well?


No, because that is not what the war in Iraq was about. That is your mistaken assumption/opinion.

Frankly, if this war were about oil, we would have gone into Iran. There is no doubt about that one. There was ample justification, and they have far more oil.


Step by step madman, they have to appear just a little credible to the world!

Its like saying i dont think the robbers of that bank were after the money, if they were after the money, they would have robbed fort knox


Your logic puzzles me madman...

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Senser]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Senser


Major, have you ever thought about the fact that the so called war on terror is a camoflaged excuse to tackle a a far more greater threat to americas world dominance???

You are assuming that war on terror as it is portrayed is real, all your reasoning is based on this.
If it isnt, which i think is the case, than all your well formulated arguments is nothing more then a shallow illusion.
I read the book americas secret war, and wasnt impressed at all, and really think it was written to make the neo con strategy look light brown instead of the truth namely very darkbrown.
Just a little sand in the eyes if you will.....misinformation.

Take away a few pieces in the chain of your arguments , and there is no chain anymore


Even if this were the case and the war were all about oil (I assume that is your position), the same strategy would be needed. If you are going in their to seize oil in Iraq, put pressure on Saudi Arabia, and have Iran surrounded, you still need to deal with an insurgency; you still need to draw the local opposition to a place of your choosing.

EDIT:

BTW Major, you have definatly found a fan of your opinions here. Very well thought out and presented IMHO.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by American Mad Man]


I say again: Insurgents are not the end, they are the means to have an excuse to invade countries.
It started after the dubious 9-11 and will go on for a very long time.
The end is to secure world dominance, financially and militairally.
First step is secure the flow of Oil, who controls the oil controls the world, also interwined with the dollar hegemony.
Second step is to take the wind out of the sails of countries that might step up to americas world dominance, China Russia India en yes even the EU!!

Its that simple, americas aggresiveness is only producing more insurgents, and this is really a good thing for the current US strategy.
They can say to the world: ''See, See....terrorism is a threat and we are gonna tackle it"
The US is already demonizing China and soon they will be labeled as terrorists.
Its a well thought out strategy but some people still look the other way because they dont get it.Its so abvious imo...



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Major,

Your posts are nothing more then Neocon propaganda, the way that they want us to see it.

Cant believe anyone would nominate you for these shallow conclusions.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Senser]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorCee
The nuclear area is an important point that actually
redefined our number one priority in the war.

Pakistan with some arm twisting
was persuaded to let US inspectors into their
facilities. This gives us the ability to inventory
their weapons and nuclear material.


But I thought that merely solving a problem of technique represented a dramatic step forward in the Iraqi program. Doesn't that mean that so long as Pakistan is unstable and has an untrustworthy intelligence service that Pakistan's cooperation is not enough assurance of their non-cooperation with terrorists? We should have been up to our neck in Pakistan and Afghanistan routing out the radical elements once and for all.
Now on to Iraq- keeping in mind that we still haven't talked about Iran.

I said that my answer to Iraq was that destroying a weapons program doesn't take 2 years and 100,000+ troops. We could have simply destroyed any installation to which we were not given complete access.
You replied


I believe this is consistent with how we did the war.

Maybe there was a better plan for getting
rid of him than what we did, which took about a few months
and all of our troops that we sent. If there was
better plan, nobody has ever presented it.


You seem to have misunderstood. I'm not saying we should have spent 2 years and hundreds of thousands of troops- which of course is consistent with what we did.
I'm saying that we should have gotten serious about something that had not only been suggested, but very weakly practiced for years previously- retaliatory airstrikes. All we had to do was retarget those strikes to the facilities that we were not given access to. "Show it or lose it."
That was an extremely popular idea with conservatives during the Clinton admin- has everyone forgotten already?


Even you
seem to want to immediately send a large army to Afghanistan
immediately before even trying anything else. Yet
you don't see that sending the large army to Iraq
was a last resort after trying years for a less
dangerous solution.


False analogy. The missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are very different. Routing out a terrorist haven is not the same as destroying dangerous technology. Terrorists are small, scattered, mobile, and numerous. Nuclear facilities are large, stationary, and relatively few, and we had eyes safely on the ground who could grid search every installation in that country, calling in strikes on every one of them that was not opened to them.


Which of the two is more dangerous in the long run?
(1) Saddam left with an army of 400,000 and hidden
nuclear program that had solved 90% of the nuclear
bomb puzzle.
(2) A core of 200 guys hidden away in mountains in
Afghanistan with a plan to conquer the world by
steeling 757s and crashing them into skyscrapers.


Tell me which one has killed more Americans and you have the answer to your own question.

Saddam's army was a paper tiger; we both are well aware of that. The nuclear puzzle was nowhere near 90% complete- they didn't have the facilities to actually build it, and as Iran has proven, if they had started we would have seen it and been able to destroy it, just as Israel did to them in '81.

Give me a cadre of 200 veteran guerilla soldiers, a few thousand more who will follow if lead properly, and the kind of financial resources that Bin Laden has, and I could do some serious damage.
As for having tried everything else against Iraq and having volunteers to handle Afghanistan for us... 1. We hadn't tried everything in Iraq. 2. The volunteers were inept- they gave Bin Laden safe passage through their lines at Tora Bora.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
• The US Department of Energy (the first two sets of numbers) uses private oil industry statistics, and not reserve figures from another (and presumably more trustworthy) government office, the USGS (the third and forth sets of numbers).
• Does the Middle East have two thirds of the world's oil reserves? Notice the USGS figures stating that it has (respectively) 54 and 39 percent -- NOT two thirds.
• Does Iraq have the world's second largest oil reserves? Not if you include the Kuwait Neutral Zone as part of Kuwait rather than Iraq, according to USGS.
• Does the USGS have a different view of the potential of Europe, Russia and the former USSR than the oil industry?


First row of numbers = billions of 42 gallon barrels


Second row of numbers = % of world oil reserves
DOE / OGJ (1) DOE/ GULF(2) USGS (3) USGS (4)

Proven reserves
(oil industry) Identified
reserves Recoverable
reserves
Iran 89.7 93.1 69.2 128.9
Iran % world 8.8 9.5 6.3 5.7
Iraq 112.5 100.0 90.8 147.8
Iraq % world 11.1 10.2 8.2 6.5
Kuwait 96.5 94.7 85.7 112.3
Kuwait Neutral Zone NA NA 13.7 20.6
Total Kuwait % of world 9.5% 9.65% 9.01 5.84
Oman 5.3 5.7 7.5 12.3
Qatar 3.7 5.4 3.9 8.7
Saudi Arabia 263.5 261.4 258.6 374.2
Saudi % world 25.9 26.6 23.4 16.5
Syria 2.5 2.3 3.9 5.7
United Arab Emirates 97.8 63.8 61.1 79.7
Yemen 4.0 2.1
Other 0.0 0.5 2.70 3.7
Total Mid East 675.6 629.2 597.2 899.2
All Mid East. as % world 66.4 64.1 54.1 39.6
North America 55.1 55.6 112.1 397.9
South America 89.5 69.2 77.6 185.5
Europe & Frmr USSR 77.6 82.3 166.2 423.8
All Europe & Frmr
USSR as % world 7.6 8.3 15.0 18.6
Africa 74.9 86.5 76.5 170.7
Asia 44.0 58.7 71.2 170.6
Total world estimate 1016.8 981.4 1103.2 2272.5

Omitted from Middle East: Bahrain (0.1 to 1 billion), Israe (0)l, Jordan (0)

END



There, I hope this settles the argument of who has the most oil.


You can find the preceeding info at: www.radford.edu...

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Vagabond,

The more you give me your strategy the more entertained
I become. Lets see if I'm getting your message right.
You think we should have attacked Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Syria, Iran, and that we should have bombed or
destroyed anything necessary in Iraq in the quest to destroy
a nuclear weapons program, BUT we should not have
attacked Iraq. I'm glad you draw the line somewhere.

Okay, now for some comments on your latest comments.
You think 200 hard core guys in the mountains of
Afghanistan that want to conquer the world, by stealing
757s and crashing into skyscrapers are more dangerous
than Saddam with an army of 400,000 and a buried
nuclear weapons program that has solved the single
most difficult problem in making a nuclear bomb.

You say the 200 in Afghanistan are more dangerous
because they killed Americans. To begin with, those guys
killed no one. A handful of guys in the US did the
killing and they are all dead. Those guys in
Afghanistan have killed no Americans, unless they
moved to Iraq. Also I predicted that they would
kill no more Americans in the US back about that
time. I said way back there that they were done here.
Everyone said I was wrong, but you know
what, they haven't been able to send one more effort here.
Also this core group of Al Qaeda is believed to
have broken into very small groups and dispersed,
making it hard to find them and also harder for
them to coordinate anything like attacks.

The reason they have not made anymore efforts into
America is it was not in their strategy to attack
America after the initial attack. Their strategy was
to make an attack on America that would bait us into
attacking into Afghanistan, something you would have
fallen right into, even though it has been shown
from actual experience that the country could effectively
be wrested from their control by using a willing ally
that can also be helpful to us in the future.

The Al Qaeda script planned and envisioned the following scenario.
(1) USA would attack Afghanistan in response to 9-11 and
try to weed out Al Qaeda from the country.
(2) Al Qaeda would remain hidden away in remote areas
of Afghanistan and conduct a war of attrition over
many years just as they did with the Russians. This
would demonstrate to the Islamic world that Al Qaeda
was powerful and the word of God, and it would discredit
the US who would tire of this eventually and be kicked
out of Afghanistan. With the winning army in place,
after kicking America out of Afghanistan, they could
spread their action to other Islamic countries and
eventually bring all Islamic countries back under the
one caliphate. After that there is always the rest of
the world.

So you see those 200 guys in Afghanistan did not kill Americans
as you have implied, so this deflates your argument that they
were a danger to us, and far from getting thousands to follow
them, they have actually had to splinter up into very small groups
and make their primary mission in life hiding. This does not
constitute very much current danger, only a danger more far
off that has to eventually be dealt with.

Now for a few words on your comments on the nukes.
I realize you don't think it was very important and
that you believe they were no where near it. Well,
that may be, but it was not known back then how
near they were. It was just believed that they
did hide the program. Maybe they could never
have got the bomb and we should not have worried
about it, and so maybe you are right that this
never would be a danger.

It might be instructive to look at what Mahdi Obeidi
has said about that program that you believe to be
so insignificant. Mahdi was the top scientist on
developing the centrifuge that successfully enriched
uranium under their program and it was his yard
that had the program buried in it.

Among those things buried were:
(1) Over 200 booklets detailing every piece of the
centrifuges and how to assemble them.
(2) Four prototypes of the most highly advanced centrifuge
components needed for their assembly.


Concerning the detailed drawings, dimensions, blue prints
and instructions for making the centrifuges and the
prototypes buried in his garden Mahdi said this:


These drawings, documents, and prototypes represented the
accumulated knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear centrifuge
program. They were not actual weapons of mass destruction,
but they were probably the most valuable building blocks
for WMD that Iraq ever possessed. Saddam's son Qusay had
ordered me to keep them safe from inspectors in 1992,
and the Iraqi government concocted a story that they
had been destroyed by the security services.


Developing the centrifuge was a monumental job which his
team spent a good many years on and finally did develop it.
About the centrifuge, he said:


The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece
of nuclear technology. Because it is the most efficient
and easiest method to hide, the centrifuge will
continue to be the preferred method for illicitly producing
bomb-grade uranium. With advances in centrifuge technology,
it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program
inside a single warehouse.


Concerning how close Iraq came


one thing is clear. Although Saddam never had nuclear
weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came
to developing them should serve as red flag to the international
community.



The fact is that Iraq's top scientist on uranium enrichment,
the key to building a bomb, hid their program under orders
from the top. This program had effectively solved the
problem of uranium enrichment and had the detailed plans
and specs ready to be put back into manufacture if the
opportunity became present.

Iraq refused under threat of war to let UN inspectors
interview these scientists in a neutral setting where
they were un coerced where this above fact might have
been established.

With these two facts established above confirmed, I ask
you, what logical conclusion would you make about
Iraq's nuclear aspirations and intentions? Also there
was that nagging thought that at some point Iraq might
someday be able to supply a nuke to terrorists and this
was something that Bush had zero tolerance for.

I really liked your thoughts on getting serious years
earlier on air strikes that had been practiced weakly.
I think the ball really was dropped there. Actually I
would not have pursued the war just as it has been
done either. The way I would have done is pretty
irrelevant, and I am just happy that Bush bit the
bullet, made the decision, and has pretty much left
the tactical and strategic decisions to his commanders.
As I pointed out in my post "This is really a pretty
nice war", I have to say it has gone better than I
expected, and I expected it to go pretty well.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
[edit on 8/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Just to clarify a few areas where you have mistaken my point
1. I never said I advocated going to Syria. I said that control of Syria was one of several nations which controls access to Iraq and that your claim that we have established a base in Iraq is not very strong unless we control or are assured of the cooperation of Syria or one of the other nations neighboring Iraq.
2. I never said we had to send troops into Iran. I've been pretty clear that weapons programs can be taken out from the air so long as we know where they are (which we did in Iraq). Iran however is in a much better position to threaten the economic interests of the US in that region (via the Strait of Hormuz) so it would be unwise to attack Iran even from the air without a stable presence in the region.

3. You are correct that I believe we should have sent a large force into Western Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is where Al Qaida was and that was the place to get them all and destroy them all, not just scatter them. We scattered Saddam's weapons programs, but you are concerned that he might have reconstituted them. Why do you not have the same fear of Al Qaida reconstituting itself?

You doubt that Al Qaida posed as much of a threat as some guys in Iraq who had done some math and drawn some blueprints. Al Qaida had the means to attack America, they have successfully attacked America before, and so long as they exist they will from time to time continue attacking us until we finally are baited into a fight on the ground of their choosing, unless of course we completely destroy them.

You doubt we could have done this in Afghanistan, but your reasons are not sufficient. Just because it was their strategy does not mean that it was to be avoided at all costs. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Their plan was outdated. They thought that they could wage a 1970s war in the year 2000 against a modern military, just because it worked in the 1980s against a small force whose doctrine, equipment, and tactics have proven flawed on every battlefield where they have been employed since 1967.
We did what Saddam wanted us to in the Gulf. We took a large force to Saudi Arabia and attacked him so that he could have his mother of all battles. We were too fast and too powerful- we were not an undisciplined conscript army using soviet equipment and doctrine such as Saddam had faced during the Iraq-Iran war. He had grossly overestimated the strength of his position, and although we had no idea it would go quite that well, we took advantage of it and we came out on top because we were not afraid.
How can we reverse that now and be afraid of the Taliban? Once bitten twice shy- America has a bad taste in its mouth about guerilla warfare, I understand. What I don't understand is how anyone can claim that Iraq was any better of an option; we still got into a guerilla war!

The fact that Al Qaida was scattered only helps my case; for one thing, that's exactly what got us into the guerilla war that you wanted to avoid, and we got it in an urban environment just to make matters worse. Saddam's weapons program was scattered, but you say it remained a threat because it wasn't found and destroyed. I say the same for Al Qaida then. Al Qaida had to be found and destroyed on the ground because they were many and scattered. Saddams program was of far fewer components and generally more stationary- it could have been taken from the air.

You believe that Al Qaida (which you refer to as "200 guys") didn't kill any Americans. In other words you believe that the 9/11 hijackers had no training, no funding, no coordination, no orders, no help getting into America, NOTHING AT ALL from Al Qaida and Bin Laden? I've got this lovely bridge that you really should see, and I'll make you a hell of a deal on it.

You keep going back to nukes- the ultimate scare tactic. Those dang things have become a modern Sun God- every mortal stands in awe- they just aren't that big of a deal. They're not easy to make, they're not easy to hide. You'd think that with all the money we spend on aircraft, UAVs, sats, etc that just maybe the US would notice something like the construction of a nuclear ractor or hundreds of gas centrifuges in a nation that was crawling with weapons inspectors?

"Say, Saddam, I couldn't help noticing this really big construction project near Osirak- do you think we could have a look at it?"
"NO! It is my new Mosque."
*picks up cell phone*
"Yeah, go ahead and bomb that stuff near Osirak, he won't let us see it."


Among those things buried were:
(1) Over 200 booklets detailing every piece of the
centrifuges and how to assemble them.
(2) Four prototypes of the most highly advanced centrifuge
components needed for their assembly.


4 prototype components and 200 books? That's why we spent a couple hundred billion dollars? What the hell are they going to do with 4 parts and some books, build the worlds first nuclear roman candle? How about we just wait until they order some suspicious parts or start a construction project, or start importing uranium (never mind the yellow cake- it only counts if it really happened) then bomb the incoming supplies or the area where the stuff is being assembled?




With advances in centrifuge technology,
it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program
inside a single warehouse.


But you still have to get the parts and the Uranium. They don't sell this stuff at Walmart. You make it sound like Saddam could have had the bomb any day. Why then hadn't he even bothered to dig up that stuff after 10 years?


With these two facts established above confirmed, I ask
you, what logical conclusion would you make about
Iraq's nuclear aspirations and intentions?


That they were unattainable and did not merit the expense of an invasion, much less an occupation after the fact. Next question.



I really liked your thoughts on getting serious years
earlier on air strikes that had been practiced weakly.
I think the ball really was dropped there. Actually I
would not have pursued the war just as it has been
done either.


I'm glad we agree on something.


and has pretty much left the tactical and strategic decisions to his commanders.

Except of course letting Rumsfeld send us in with fewer troops than the military really thought we needed to do a good job. Remember those pesky reports about the oil ministry being guarded but not certain WMD related facilities? Rumsfeld initially wanted fewer than 100k troops, we're lucky we even got the screwup that we did.

If this is a nice war, I'd hate to be around when you thought something was going badly. No offense, I'm just sayin'.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
You cleared up Iran and Syria pretty well and you
have given some reasons behind some of your other
opinions and I guess everyone can decide for themselves.
Still it seems to me your obsession with
Pakistan is a tunnel vision thing. To want to
invade in Pakistan where the leadership had cooperated
on the nuclear issue and was actively going after Al Qaeda
where they have captured about 700 including the
number three Al Qaeda man, is a little hard for
me to understand when you are so hesitant to invade
in Iraq with all the non cooperation that has
been given over the past 10 years. Still you
have presented the reason and I'm ready to go on
to some other point. No use beating a dead horse.

I would like to get back to your original post sometime
and I have a little time right now so here goes:
This is appropriate anyhow because of the fact that
it goes into some strategy on Afghanistan and someone
else specifically asked about Afghanistan.

You made this point:


Major avenues of movement in Afghanistan can be locked
down and our air power would give us a mobility advantage.
The borders can be controlled to stop the movement of
war materiel to the warlords and terrorists if we go
in with an appropriately sized force. Also, because of
the smaller civilian population, relative lack of urban
terrain, and lower agricultural capacity, the non-military
logistics of the enemy can be pressured more easily.
We don't have to go about it the Russian way- we can
fight a maneuver campaign- hit them where they aren't,
exploit their critical weaknesses, and save ourselves
the constant minor skirmishes and terrorist attacks which
are turning Iraq into a slow war of attrition.


First of all I would agree that major avenues of movement,
like their main road system could be locked down. Actually
the Russians did that pretty well too, this is a point well
made. Your next one though has been shown to be incorrect.
The borders cannot be controlled. They are just too long with
too much cover. It's the needle in a haystack thing.
The Russians could never control them, and we showed that
we couldn't either. That is why the core Al Qaeda was able to
escape into Pakistan. We put every available resource
on it and could not control it. True we did not have many
resources there, but we did have as many as we could get
there, and we had plenty of air surveilance which is your main
asset for controlling borders and we were not short on
that. Getting our troops there was a major problem. It
was estimated that it would take 6 months to move a major
ground force in. We got the war fought though with a
handful of men in a couple months and we had to use the
handful because that was all that we could physically
position there in the time frame that we operated in.
People that say we should have sent a large army never
have explained how we should have. Our military certainly
did not know how to do it in less than six months. You
look at where we did send in a large force, and you will
see that it took six months to do each time, (1st gulf
war and 2nd) To send in a large force as you have favored
would have required a six month delay, which the public
would never have stood for, especially the democrats who
would see the non movement as a large political factor
to be utilized and played up to the hilt.

Your comments about " save ourselves the constant minor
skirmishes and terrorist attacks which are turning Iraq
into a slow war of attrition." overlooks a key point.
Slow war of attrition in Afghanistan was what they wanted
and you are very willing to jump into that one. The present
slow war of attrition is taking its toll on the
Iraqi fighters, as US casualties decline steadily.
If 6 months to a year from now US forces are still taking
causalities at the present rate, which is actually very
low, or they are taking them at an increased rate, then
I will concede that you have a point. On the other hand if,
a year from now the casualties are almost all Iraqi,
as I predict then maybe my point is made. Another factor
here, under your plan, is that we would have had the constant
minor skirmishes in Afghanistan that would have been pulled
off entirely on a long drawn out enemy time table of
years. These guerillas would have fought for a few
days or weeks, then went back to the farms and been everyday
farmers, herders etc, then back for a few days to
pull off an ambush somewhere, then back to the farm,
just like they did against the Russians. That is
how their model worked, and it worked well. In Iraq
they can't reproduce that model. They are too far from
their homes to melt back into them. In Iraq they can
be identified as not part of the local peacefuls. They
are now not on the home court but have become visitors,
and it makes all the difference.

Their strategy has been busted totally with the US not
going into Afghanistan to give them the years and years
of targets to patiently snipe and attrit away.

Al Qaeda strategy was to conduct a guerilla war
in Afghanistan and to eventually expand it and
spread jihadist Islamic governments and
the re-establishment of the caliphate.


What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the
enemy's strategy. --SUN TZU


The US strategy attacked the Al Qaeda strategy at its
base. The US took away the only jihadist government
that Al Qaeda had established, the Taliban government
in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda failed in its first goal
when the US did not cooperate by sending thousands of
targets to Afghanistan to be sniped against for 10
years and thereby show the Islamic world that Islam
could defeat the US. To add to the failure of Al
Qaeda on their opening barrage they not only did
not succeed in getting their thousands of targets, but
they lost the only jihadist government which had taken
them 10 to 20 years before to build. As I said this
has been busted entirely leaving Al Qaeda without
a plan, at least without one with any chance of
success.

Trying to salvage their goal the only remaining option
to them has been to send forces into Iraq, and
our fighting of them in Iraq has given us the
added advantage of getting most of the Iraqi
population as enemies for them also. I would
rather do that than send in American troops to
Pakistan to fight there. Doing that would without
doubt loose Pakistani support, and we would have
to carry the full load of that fight. It would
not be an achievable goal to get the population
of Pakistan to side with us. All the intel on
it is that they would fight us because of deep
Al Qaeda sympathies there. A fight in Pakistan
against Al Qaeda would deny us help from the
local populace. On top of that even the government
of Pakistan might decide to fight us. They refuse
to give permission for any sizeable operation of
Americans on their soil, but will turn their head
for a small incursion of a seal team in some
isolated area for a short duration. They have
a real military and this is also not something
you want to take on lightly.

Since our major strategy is to get the Islamic
of the area to carry the load, then attack on
Iraq is way superior to an attack into Pakistan
for the simple reason we can get local support
if Iraq and we can only get local resistance
in Pakistan.

I have actually been in combat and have been able
to handle it, but I have to tell I would much
rather be training Iraqis to take on the fight
than handling it all by myself in some place with
no help from the populace. It is nothing new of
having an ally in a war that is not really too friendly
with you. Russia siding with America against Germany
is an example. Russia eventually did "go against"
the US but it was still convenient to take their help
in WWII. Likewise the Shia may not love us,
but we have the common goal of not letting a jihadist
government take their country, so why not use the help?
Our strategy of getting help of the Islamic of the
area is the best option. We just do not have the
forces to go it alone. So far we have been
successful in this strategy. Saudi, is cleaning
up their area, Pakistan is working on theirs
and in both these cases there is not one American
casualty. Iraq is working toward success pretty
quickly, as the declining US casualties verify.

Now it could well have been that if the US had been
able to send a large force into Afghanistan within
a month, like you favor, then possibly we might have
done that and you never know, maybe Al Qaeda's strategy
might have worked. Maybe we were just lucky not
really being able to send in a large force. In any
event this strategy that you favored was judged
to be an impossible one. We could not have delivered
that attack for at least six months and because of the
winter it would have been even longer. Sometimes you
have to attack even if the conditions don't appear
optimum. I suspect that we did not expect to pull
the thing off in the 2 months that we did, but after
it was done and sending in a large force was still
four months off, it did not make any sense to call
"time out" return the country to the Taliban, encourage
Al Qaeda to come back and wait till we got our large
force there. It was time to just take the victory,
surprised as we might have been. Any way you look at
it though, Master stroke or lucky stroke, I have to say
it has worked extremely well for us.


[edit on 9-11-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   
One thing I didn't cover on my last comments
was this following criticism of Rumsfeld/Bush:


Except of course letting Rumsfeld send us in
with fewer troops than the military really
thought we needed to do a good job. Remember
those pesky reports about the oil ministry
being guarded but not certain WMD related
facilities? Rumsfeld initially wanted fewer
than 100k troops, we're lucky we even got
the screw up that we did.


This is another one of those many charges made by those
who have a deep desire to discredit the present war
or Bush or Rumsfeld. These have received lots of coverage
in the news but is there really any truth to them?

One of the great lessons many learned in Vietnam was
"Keep the war strategy out of the white house". That war
was ran right from the oval office. Johnson planned each
stroke and overrode his top military advisors at almost
every turn. I could go into the many examples, but
won't, for now, unless this statement is challenged by
someone. With this war, Vietnam, being handled so badly
by the white house and this lesson of history being so
recent, many remember it, and the consequences are that
Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II were all planned
and strategized by the military. I believe the fact that
these wars were planned by the military that had to do
them is well documented. To address this assertion that
Vagabond has pointed out, as he no doubt often saw in the
news, lets look at the facts. The fact is that the size
of the force was determined by the general in charge and
he did it early on in the planning.


I realize that many arm chair generals were interviewed
on various news show that said we needed a lot more
troops for the invasion of Iraq. Also many democratic
politicians started quoting these "experts" and
telling how incompetent Bush and Rumsfeld were to have
overridden this advice, but lets look at the facts:

(1) General Tommy Franks was the commander CENTCOM and
he conceived the plan and directed the attack. He was
the man. Bush and Rumsfeld gave him everything he asked for.

(2) He was probably the brightest and most creative
Army General we have had since WWII. In his book
"American Soldier" he gives a pretty good history of
the war, its planning and execution. He gave the
exact timeline taken from his notes and documented
the planning blow by blow as it was done.

Lets look at some of the history of this general who
was the commander in charge of it all at the time.

December 4, 2001
When getting ready for Iraq in a briefing to Rumsfeld
as Franks discussed OPLAN 1003 which was the old plan for
a war on Iraq, Franks said the following to Rumsfeld:


As I concluded my summary of the existing 1003 plan, I noted
that we'd trimmed planned force levels from 500,000 to
around 400,000. But even that was still way too large, I told the
Secretary, "This is not 1990. THe Iraqi Military today is not the
one we fought in 1991."



December 12, 2001
Later when discussing new plans for build up for the Iraqi war,
Rumsfeld asked "How long will all this take?"

Franks said this:


Mr. Secretary, if we do this using spikes, we'll wind up with
about a hundred thousand troops, two hundred tanks, one hundred
attack helicopters, and two hundred and fifty strike aircraft
in about six months.


The briefing went on and later Rumsfeld said, "All those troops
wouldn't fit into Kuwait."

Franks answer:


"Not today, Mr. Secretary. Neither would the land-based aircraft.
And we wouldn't want all the planes there. Kuwait's too close
to Iraqi missiles and WMD. So we're going to need enhanced basing
up and down the Gulf."


December 28, 2001
Briefing the President, Gen Franks gave the following:


"Even in a Unilateral Option," I explained, "the Brits and
Australians would be with us. We would begin ground operations
with as few as one hundred thousand troops, and continue to
build our force levels as long as necessary to ensure success.
The key will be to continue to flow forces until we are sure
we have the correct troop-to-task ratio."



So according to Tommy Franks who was the commander in charge,
Rumsfeld did not dictate the plan overriding him, but to the
contrary accepted Franks plan without second guessing, just as
Bush did.

As bright as Franks was, he never did see the guerilla war
coming and nobody else did either. This was cause for some
embarrassment when it appeared that the war was complete
and it was announced that military operations were over. In
fact the war which had been a walk through had just begun
because Saddam had planned for a guerilla war. Just as Johnson
sat in the white house and made idiot decisions about Vietnam
Saddam was doing the same thing in Iraq.

In retrospect the clues were there, that, it was going to be
a guerilla war. One of them was that Iraqi troop movements
before the war were puzzling us. They were moving troops
out of Baghdad north. This did not make sense because we
were expecting a block by block really dirty, intense, urban
warfare in Baghdad and for troops to being headed north into
the Sunni triangle area was puzzling. Actually the troops
were probably preparing to melt into the local population
and trying to be invisible. Of course also, many of them,
most actually, were going to melt into the local population
never to fight again once Saddam was history, but never the
less some were going to hide and then fight later.

Another clue was that troops were abandoning their posts
along the way at times and putting on civilian clothes. In
most cases they had actually resigned from the army, but
some were waiting to fight another day even though it
was very few.

When troops got to Baghdad they were expecting a replay of
the battle of Stalingrad where the Germans fought block by
block with the Russians and it was a slaughter for both
sides. The American troops had even coined a name for the
battle they expected, it was "Saddamgrad". I just happened
to see some clips of troop interviews on the history channel
last night, where the troops were telling of their apprehension
before entering Baghdad and talking about the upcoming
Saddamgrad. This was on the program "Shoot out".

What really transpired though was that the troops drove to
the center of town, and helped the people pull down the
statue of Saddam.

All the critics of how badly Bush handled this keep pointing
out these mistakes and pointing them out as his. In
fact they were Tommy Franks mistakes if anyone's and on top
of that they were not mistakes. His battle went much better
than he expected and he had to adjust to guerilla war, but
this actually favored us in the long run. How did it favor
us? I'm glad you asked.

When Saddam made the decision to give up the conventional war
in Baghdad and let many of the troops all go north, he probably
saved us some very large casualties. Even with our superior
trained forces, Iraq had vast numerical superiority, and in
a block by block fighting, where it would have been hard to
differentiate between friend and foe, our air power would
have been partially marginalized and the fight would have
been very bloody with Americans taking massive casualties
from a far superior, in number, force. We would have not
got out of that fight without a large American casualty
count. It would have far exceeded what we have experienced
in this guerilla war that has transpired. The very lowest
estimates of US dead I ever heard of before the war was
10,000. It is interesting that many of the people that
supported the war with those estimates are now proclaiming
we can't win with our body count at 2000.

Let's put the casualty rate into perspective. For a war
that has gone on for near three years, with perhaps an
average of 120,000 troops there, we see that we have
averaged 2,000/120,000 deaths in 2 3/4 years. This
works out to be a death toll of less than 1% per year.
The actual figure is 0.6%. To further put this in perspective
lets look at a military unit I was in in peace time.
We had about 80 people in that unit. During the 3 years
I was in that unit, we lost 4 people to death in various
ways. Two were lost in Aircraft accidents, 1 suicide, and
1 car accident. That works out to be a death rate per
year of 0.66%. This peace time death rate was actually
higher than what we are experiencing in Iraq.

Now if we had gotten Saddamgrad as we expected our death
rate in Iraq would have probably been very much higher.
So, this unforeseen guerilla war has probably also
worked out in our favor. The one big benefit of it is
that it is being fought in large part Iraqi VS Iraqi.
Saddamgrad would have all been Iraqi VS American.
This fact very much favors us, At present the casualties
are made up 95% by Iraqis, and the rate of US casualties
is decreasing as we train the Iraqis to take over the
fight.

This fact that the guerilla war is working out, casualty
wise, better than a conventional war we can mark up to
being lucky stroke. It was a lucky stroke, because
Saddam made the choice to go guerilla instead of conventional.







[edit on 10-11-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 10-11-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I still have a number of points to answer from
Vagabond's original post. Apparently I did not make
a good enough case originally and I will try to
make up for my shortcoming now and I think I will
continue today with this point:


MajorCee said: (2) It enlisted the help of a very good
portion of the Shia population of Islam to fight Al Qaeda
for us.


I disagree with this suggestion. If we had a large Shia
population that was really in it with us, why aren't
we enjoying massive success in infiltrating Al Qaida?
I don't believe that the Shia trust us, I do not believe
they will tolerate our presence for very long, and I
am suspicious that their loyalties are much closer to
Iran than to the United States- realpolitik can only
last so long.


"Why aren't the Shia massively infiltrating Al Qaida?"
I think the answer must have something to do with
the alliances that are being made up. The basic
situation you have, concerning the Shia, is that
they are generally aligning with the US. We are
essentially presenting them with a government that
they can pretty much control. While presenting them
with this opportunity we are furnishing protection
with arms and training so that they will succeed.
Its a deal they can't refuse, as long as they
want their own government. If they don't want
their own government then they will never ask
us to leave anyway. Of course, they want it.
Since the Sunni population were at the core of the
previous regime and as such made the preparations
and plans such as hiding weapons etc., for the
following insurgency, it was necessary for us
to give this help to the Shia to deny any re takeover
of the old regime. Any takeover of the old regime
would include one important property that our strategy
does not like. Since the Sunni are such a small
portion of the population, the only foreseeable
Sunni led government would have to be some sort
of a dictatorship. Another dictatorship would again
set up the situation where the will of one man could
hold the country hostage and pursue hostile missions
similar to Saddam's. Democratic Majority governments
usually favor a national policy that does not force its
citizens to war.

Probably they will want us to leave. We are presenting
the package to them that can make it happen, but first they
have to insure that they don't become prisoner of this
dedicated core of the old regime which has schemed and
made the plans to reconstitute the Bath regime.

Since the Sunni portion of the insurgency is against
the US, Al Qaeda is cooperating at some level with
them. They actually have different goals but the
goals share some objectives. The Sunni want the
old regime back. Al Qaeda is represented by the
jihadist faction of the insurgents and they want
their brand of jihadist government established that will
fight and spread their beliefs to other Islamic
communities. You can see the similarity in what
the two share. Neither wants to cooperate with
the US. They will try to use each other as allies
even though they disagree.

We are not getting the Shia to expose Al Qaeda because
Al Qaeda stays away from the Shia. They limit their
association with the Iraqis to the Sunni element.
Their efforts with the Shia is to kill them, whenever
they volunteer for police or army duty. That is why
Iraqis are taking 95% of the casualties. The Shia
and Kurdish that make up the police and army are
being attack by both the Sunni and jihadist elements
of the insurgency. By the way, the instances of Iraqis
exposing insurgents is increasing. The trend is our
friend.

If at some point the killing of Shia by the insurgents
begins to work and the volunteers are not sufficient
to win, then the insurgency can win. If, however, the
Shia do not waiver and stay the course, they will
crush the insurgency because of their vastly superior
numbers and help given by the Americans. So far, all
indications are that Shia will is holding up. Their
number of volunteers is increasing not withering
under the insurgents efforts.


Your statement that "I do not believe they will tolerate
our presence for very long" is an expected eventuality. Our
objective is to deny the jihadists control the new
government. We will be content to leave once a government is
formed that is not driven by the jihadist ideology. Remember
the attack into Iraq was a part of the overall strategy to
deny success and growth the jihadist movement which if not
stopped has the possibility of becoming an inflection point
in history, by being an important first victory of Al Qaeda
in obtaining their jihadist network of Islamic countries. It
matters very little that they want us out of there eventually.
Besides, if we want to keep a base there, I believe that
the Kurds would love to have us at a base in their region.
It could be envisioned pretty easily that the Kurds would
ask us to remain, and the Shia would ask us to leave.
If we truly decided that a geological base in that region
is desirable, then it would be fairly easy to come up
with a story like, "The central government of Iraq has
asked us to leave and Kurdish region prefer that we stay,
for this reason we are building a small base in the Kurdish
area in response to their request for our presence. We
will abandon this base also once the Kurds are comfortable
that they will not come under any future attack as happened
previously from the Iraqi government. I don't predict any
such thing will happen, but it points out the possibility
of keeping a base there if needed for other operations
in the middle east. I think it is much more likely that
the US will just gladly leave once Al Qaeda is completely
denied any say in the new government, and it appears that
things have stabilized to the point that Iraqis are
handling it. I suspect that what will happen is that pretty
soon there will be a government of Iraq fully functioning
and building bureaucrats just like any other government. I
suspect that this bunch is going to feel indebted to the US
for making it happen. I suspect that this new government
just might like a security blanket of a US presence to
insure that these bureaucrats keep their jobs and are not
displaced by some action from outside Iraq, whether it
be from Al Qaeda, Iran, Saudi or wherever. The US has
been able to forge some pretty good alliances with Islamic
governments before and it could happen again. If it does
not though, well, I can live with that too.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I haven't got much time right now but I thought I'd drop in to let you know that I haven't forgotten about our discussion. I'm working on a research paper for school at the moment, subject: Iraq. Obviously that's made Iraq about the last thing I've felt like writing about during my free time recently. I'll be back soon, I just don't want to try and belt out replies when I can't take the time to consider your points.

Feel free to proceed with addressing the points in my original post and I'll try to put together a concise response when I can.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I still have several areas to cover that I did not go fully
into and the one that I find most interesting is Bush's
resolve to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Vagabond gave his concerns on this subject of "stopping
the proliferation of nuclear weapons" when he made these
comments:



MajorCee said: (4) It brought about the resolve to stop the
proliferation of nuclear weapons within dangerous hands.


It brought about that resolve in who? The Europeans are
going to fold, Muslims want the bomb, and even Americans
aren't serious about it: we caved to N.K. We tolerate
Pakistan despite what A.Q. Kahn has done, and I don't
see any serious indication that we're going to draw a
hard line on Iran.


As I have noted before, a major modification in priorities
happened in the time span Oct-Dec of 2001. Before this
change, the 1st priority of the US was the capture
of Al Qaeda leadership, such as Osama bin Laden. This
was the 1st priority in the overall strategy to not
let them gain any momentum or success in their plans
to bring about capturing Islamic governments under
their plans to reconstitute the caliphate. When the
scare of terrorists getting nuclear weapons became
a major concern in about October of 2001 the number
one priority became stopping any potential terrorist
from getting nuclear weapons. I can go into which
countries were most strongly feared of being a likely
bomb donor in the future, but for now I am concentrating
on what to do with those countries that are suspected of
being potential bomb donors. The first step against
any country that is suspected that might be giving
nuclear technologies to terrorists is to request assistance
from that country in proving that they are keeping their
nuclear assets under lock and key, giving explicit
confirmation of this by allowing US inspectors to
see this first hand. Next in priority, would be to
stop any new bomb development that would be a possible
future problem. In the event that a country is
determined to be a threat, by giving nuclear technology,
and is unwilling to give sufficient proof that they
are not doing this, then it was determined that nuclear
sites in that country would be attacked and destroyed.
In this connection it was determined that we should
develop a new strike weapon. We have nuclear bombs
capable of knocking out a hardened nuclear site, such
as the trident II. The only problem with these large
weapons is that they are surface burst weapons and
very powerful, giving a gigantic nuclear yield and
a large resulting fall out. It was determined that
the weapon for taking out a hardened nuclear site
should be something much less powerful but still
powerful enough to do the job. What was determined
to be a better more surgical weapon would be something
with about a 10 kiloton yield that could drive deep into
an underground hardened site, and give it's yield there.
This would limit damage more to the area that you are
really trying to destroy.


As pointed out in intelligence reports like those from
Stratfor and the reportings of George Friedman in his
book "America's Secret War", The expanded Bush doctrine
at this time (December of 2001) included the following
concerning nuclear weapons.
========================================
The US will not tolerate existence of nuclear weapons
unless those weapons are under verifiable control of a
government in which the US has confidence.
========================================

For more information on this, of a recent nature, take
a look at what happened on July 1, 2005.

I was on the east coast on a short vacation and on June 30
I was in New York City visiting a niece and then we
drove back to Greenwich Conn. and it was late. We
tuned in cspan2 very late, it was after midnight
and Senate was still in session, unusual for this
hour of the day. They were debating funding of a new
nuclear bunker buster. This is apparently the program
I referred to above concerning a new nuclear weapon
that could drive deep into the earth and then explode.
The first senator giving his views on the debate
was a democrat and he opposed funding and making the
weapon. The next one was also a democrat, John Kerry,
and he opposed it also. His logic went something like
it was a waste of money, and America would be increasing
the arms race to make the weapon. He said we would
be better off not to make the weapon because this
would set a good example for the world, and that
therefore other nations would not build the nukes
having had this good example set.

With this logic I guess he must be saying that Iran
won't build any nukes if we don't build these bunker
busters. This makes no sense to me since Iran started
their weapons program long before we decided to build
this new weapon. Also take note of the fact that Iran's
nuclear facility is deep underground, and this could
be a specific reason the Bush team wants this bunker
buster.

I looked up this bill on www.senate.gov and got the story.
Voting on it was July 1, early in the morning as I mentioned
before. Actually Feinstein introduced the legislation in
question, which was Senate Amdt. 1085 to HR 2419. This
amendment was for the purpose of withholding funding for the
nuclear bunker buster. The stated purpose of Senate Amdt.
1085 was to prohibit funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator (thats what the weapon ended up being called).

Most democrats voted to withhold funds to make the weapon.
The only democrats voting to provide the funds for the
weapon were the following:

Bayh - IN
Nelson - FL
Nelson - NE


So when Vagabond says, "even Americans aren't serious"
concerning stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons
then maybe he has a point. Apparently only 3 democrats
of the Senate indorse the idea to have ready a weapon
for the destruction of nuclear sites that are thought
to present a real danger in the nuclear weapons
area. On the other hand, President Bush, almost all
the republicans, and a few democrats do seem to embrace
the idea that "its better to have a nuclear bunker buster
and not need it, than to need one and not have it".


Anyway the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is going to
be built, it appears.

Here is the link concerning the amendment if you are
interested.

www.senate.gov...

One other fact that is worth mentioning is that North
Korea has decided to cooperate in shutting down their
nuclear weapons programs according to news around Oct 2,
2005. This was just 3 months after it became apparent that
the nuclear earth penetrator was going to be built. Could
there be a connection?


In my next post I will try to give some more detail on
how it first became apparent to President Bush the idea
that nuclear weapons provided enough evidence of threat,
that he took positive action against them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join