Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (40840)	8/29/2002 11:04:30 PM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

>>In 1990, major deployments were not announced or discussed until after the midterm elections, when Bush 41 announced major troop movements into the Gulf. As Asia Times also noted, the troop movements won't need to be so major this time around, because a) Saddam's forces are smaller and weaker, and b) we have so many troops and bases there already.<< 40,000 troops were dispatched to 'defend Saudi Arabia' on Aug 8, 1990. Ground troops arrived the next day. On November 8, 1990 - with no significant change in crisis U.S. doubles number of troops in area to 400,000. In a speech recorded 9/12, Bush indicates "Twenty-seven States -- rich and poor, Arab, Moslem, Asian, and African -- have answered the call of Saudi Arabia and free Kuwait and sent forces to the Gulf region to defend against Iraq." bushlibrary.tamu.edu From such sources, plus my own dim memory, we became aware of troops being sent to the region in September, about 4 months before the war started. Most troops arrived in the final two months, but the entire buildup took 5.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (40840)	8/30/2002 2:31:41 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "In 1990, major deployments were not announced or discussed until after the midterm elections, when Bush 41 announced major troop movements into the Gulf." Your memory is very selective, LOL!!! I'm guessing that you and yours weren't among those who were sent to the Gulf long before the November elections. Here's a reminder: On August 8, President Bush announced the deployment of 25,000 U.S. troops to "deter Iraqi aggression" against Saudi Arabia. isreview.org "If you look at the naval assets that have been deployed into the region, aircraft carrier battle-groups - four of them have been active at one time or another--as well as all other naval assets, I would agree there obviously isn't any other nation in the world that could do that today. We have in the first three weeks of the exercise deployed more capability than we had deployed in the first three months in 1950 when we were asked to go to Korea." -- Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, 6 September 1990 ... On 22 August, President Bush issued the first executive order authorizing the call up of 48,800 members of the Selected Reserve to active duty. ... history.navy.mil -- Carl P.S. Come on, admit it. You're making this up as you go along. If I made an argument that Iraq wasn't going to be invaded because 3 = black, you'd be arguing that 3 = white, LOL!!!

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (40840)	8/30/2002 3:14:51 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "I heard almost nothing about troop movements into Afghanistan until the bombing began." While your statement is literally true, it's misleading in that the fact is that the invasion of Afghanistan required no "troop movements into Afghanistan", except a few special forces. But you're missing the point. It was obvious to all of us that a war was on its way as early as the morning of September 11th. Right now it is not so obvious with Iraq, which is why we're discussing this. So I suppose that what you're really saying is that you saw no obvious precursors to the US attack on the Taliban that began on October 7th, 2001. We've been discussing this in reference to my figures showing the reserves being demobilized. The historical record is that the reserves were called up on September 14th: The Pentagon has announced that after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's request for authorization to activate up to 50,000 National Guard and Reserve troops, and President's Bush's approval, U.S. military planners have assigned allotments for 35,500 of them. cnn.com The President's speech on the subject: whitehouse.gov And the US response to Afghanistan is not a model for an attack on Iraq. The Afghanistan conflict required almost no ground forces, and the ground forces that were required were Special Forces type stuff that is always ready. Invading Iraq, because of the absence of a force on the ground that we can arm, will require far more ground presence than Afghanistan. That will require that far more reserves be called up. As I've shown, the number of reserves called up in the first gulf war is much, much, much larger than the maximum called up for Afghanistan. In short, an attack on Iraq will be more similar to the Kuwaiti liberation, and less similar to the Afghanistani liberation. Re: "You never answered my question -- what's the lead time for mobilizing the reserves?" The lead time for mobilizing the reserves is a few days. But that doesn't apply here, and you know it. Even after the reserves are mobilized a real shooting war (for the ground forces) is months away. I'd like to note that I've got you on record as saying that the war with Iraq will begin by April. My expectation is that in April you will be saying that the war will start in October (2003). -- Carl P.S. I find it interesting that when Bush says that the regime in Iraq must change you conclude that he is telling the truth, and that he will invade Iraq, but when he says that he will consult with his allies, and that no decision has yet been made, you conclude that he is lying in order to deceive the enemy. This is an example of selective perception.