Re: anyone believe this? [POLITICS]
perris said:
re read the article you provided, you are misinterpreting the purpose of it
it's to demonstrate that we are not safeguarding items that could be used to manufacture terrorist weapons...terrorists now have this material, thanx to our unprovoked invasion of this country
I'm not able to see the link, at least in Mozilla (and I tried turning off Proxomitron and the like for advert blocking, no go). Perhaps IE will have more success with that link...
But I have seen this demonstrated again and again in the past. Material was secured
before the weapons inspectors were thrown out following the invasion. It was after the invasion that we failed to protect it from looting by terrorists and the like that could turn around and make dirty bombs and the like...
As to Iraq and Saddam, I would have to say that if there was a right time to remove him from power, it was in 1991 at the conclusion of the first Gult War, not in 2003... The country was already weakened from 12 years of economic sanctions, military inspections and dismantling of it's weapons capability... The real reason we had a quick victory in the beginning war (but not the insurgency that followed) was that Iraq didn't have a substantial military capability and could not have put up the fight they did in 1991...
What we have done however wrt Iraq is dangerious for our country. Reports have come out (and some of them right during the Terry Shiavo media coverage, which took much of the media's attention then) which basically stated:
- The readiness level of our troops is at a real low (lower then it has been in decades)...
- Out of the hodge podge of remaining service men and reserves (who aren't committed to battle now), it would be difficult to build an effective fighting force.
- The troops already in battle (not to mention those who could be, if we had a war on another front) already have their equipment stretched rather thin, having to share equipment between units, to continue doing their job...
- Under such extreme use, the equipment is degrading rather fast, and it's unlikely we could rebuild our reserves for equipment until we withdrawl some of the commitment we now have in place.
- One thing not mentioned in the article, but worth mentioning. Even if they acquired more recruits, or re-instituted the draft, without equipment we'd be sending more of our men and women into the slaughter. One can't expect people to do the best job their capable of, without both the training and the equipment to complete their task.
But given the situation with the national debt (and our current policy of tax cut and deficit spend), this adds another element to building/rebuilding all the equipment they'd need, to be adequately supplied (let along for another battle front, should we next launch a war with Iran, North Korea, or the like, while keeping the current troops/equipment in place...)
Another more recent article was a bit more optomistic and said we could take one more battle, but beyond that... Even that more optomistic assesement didn't say we weren't stretching things mighty thin.
Sadam wasn't a viable threat. He had bad intention, yes. He was a horrible dictator responsible for some quite attroscious acts, yes (even when we were supporting him during the Iran/Iraq war). But in the aftermath of Gulf War 1, 12 years of ecconomic sanctions, dismantling of his military capability, and weapons inspections during that period, he didn't have the capability to act upon them...
What our policy of pre-emptive warfare and the like has done, is take one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and render it to a condition (based upon multiple assesements), where we are vulnerable. And given the national debt, re-supplying all this equipment that is degrading rapidly won't necessarily be an easy task... I think many can see where this is going. In combat, one of the goals is to cut off the enemies supplies/their ability to supply their own troops; but when one does it to themself, it's akin to as my martial arts teacher would put it "giving the opponent an unfair advantage"...
Now
if I were one of these enemies, sitting in Iran or North Korea for instance, I would sit back, and wait for this super power of ours to continue to tax it's own military capability, see just how far they would allow this situation (wrt our military preparedness) to decline, just how far things would be allowed to continue wrt a worsening public image around the world; and when it hit a sorta rock bottom, then launch a surprise attack with a whole host of other stated enemies in one allied assault. Essentially create a "united Earth" against whomever, apply my own "shock and awe" technique if you will, after having allowed them to weaken themselves as they wished... But as long as an opposing enemy is weakening themself, I would let them... All I can say to this, is be alert, and don't bite so much off that one is left vulnerable themself...