Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Haven't you been claiming we can't go because we don't have bases? Now Qattar is no good because it's a base? Make up your mind, for pete's sake."
There you go putting words in my mouth. I defy you to find a single post where I have ever stated that the United States doesn't have bases in the Middle East, or that bases were sufficient, in and of themselves, to support a ground war against Iraq. And just for the record, bases are not enough to support an invasion of Iraq. We need a substantial ally in the area, at least the size and proximity to Iraq of Kuwait. War is about supplies and logistics.
Re: "This is like your argument that we can't defeat Iraq except at high cost because it's so big and advanced but we can't rebuild it because it's so primitive."
I defy you to find a single post where I have ever said that we would be unable to defeat Iraq. For the record, what I've said is that (1) the US military will plan for a "sure thing" and that means hundreds of thousands of soldiers, (2) our problem would be in the administration afterwards. You guys are arguing that Iraq is just like Afghanistan and therefore we don't need an Army. But you are the ones neglecting to discern the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan.
The simple military facts are that we could defeat Europe if we wanted to, and they're a hell of a lot more powerful than Iraq. The problem, again, is what would we do with Europe after we crushed them?
Your buddies in Israel are the example I give for what happens when you can militarily crush a (very small) population, but can't administer it. I've never stated that the US cannot beat Iraq, only that (1) Iraq is more powerful than Afghanistan, and (2) that controlling the population afterwards is the real problem.
Re: "The Pew poll is from last week. Support is rising again now that Bush is making his case."
Cool, why don't you link it in.
Re: "However, my money says our aircraft will be flying out of Prince Sultan AFB. After all, they did in the big air raid last week."
(1) That's incompatible with the known fact that the air raid required about 100 planes in order for only 12 of them to drop bombs. If the air raid is from a few hundred miles away, why the huge inefficiency?
(2) Where's your links.
(3) Dropping bombs on air support stuff has been going on for 10 years. That's a hell of a lot different from a full frontal attack.
All the time you guys talk about war as if it's around the corner and all the time you're disappointed. And all the time Bush is going to provide justification for a war that will convert the American public, the United Nations, and our allies, and all the time you're still disappointed. It's time to recognize the situation for what it is, simple domestic politics.
-- Carl |
