If you were the President?

[Water Dog]

In one paragraph or less; tell us how you would deal with Iraq.
What would U do/say to the world?

Dawg

[Average Joe]

First, I would advertise free flights for anyone who wants to be a human shield. I would make sure those people make it over to Bagdad ASAP.

Any lawyers and the media would be strongly encouraged to go. In fact, first class accomodations (on my tax dollar) would be enough to get them in on the trip. (Sorry, Democrat, couldn't resist)

For those that have not read the U.N. Security Council resolution, especially where it says "FINAL", tell them to shut their trap..... and let the United States of America act in it's best interest regardless of the powerless, ineffective U.N.

[almosthaddabite]

Answer this in one paragraph??? Good one Dog! That cracked me up;)

I have posted this on another thread and is very short:

Right now the Kurds to the north are our best bet as allies. Even after Bush sr. egged them into overthrowing Saddam and then backed out on his promise to help, they are doing well and want to get rid of Saddam (the US has no support in Bagdag). There are also Kurds in the south that hate Saddam.

With the Kurds, that know the country and using the efforts of small teams of US special operations forces and CIA paramilitary units inside and around Iraq, satellite imagery, radio intercepts and airborne reconnaissance that are already in place and active. We have a converted 707 doing daily recon. There are two satellites intercepting all and I mean all communications. I

Hey, everything above is in place. Along with the Kurds, and they want a democracy, we can do it. Also could use the ****ites, but I doubt it. They hate Saddam but are religious whackos.

I really believe that this is a better method. The bombing-occupy plan that Bush seems to be set on has too many draw backs and really doesn't work in 2003. Too many civillian deaths, way bad for our economy, too many of our troops dying during the occupation(no support in Bagdad now-less after we bomb them). All this will be covered world wide by the media, and it won't portray the US as heros.
When you are an occuping solider and don't know who the enemy is it gets way ugly.

Also

[Sunshine]

If I were President I'd stop sending military and financial aide to those countries not supporting us on this one.

[John]

I agree with Sunshines post, and I would add that the time for talk is over. It's time to hit Iraq, and hit them hard. Just my speculation, but I think that once the war starts, A LOT of Iraqis will join us in the fight to rid Saddam. I hope so!

[mj]

If I was this president, I would go in the back room, take a snort then call daddy.

[Tennessee Jed]

The Kurds may not be as viable an option as you think.

Part of the Kurdish desire is to have a homeland of their own. This would include part of Turkey, or the possibility of Turkish Kurds rising up to become independent of Turkey and join the Iraqi Kurds in one country. Turkey is a NATO member, and is playing it's card as a possible base for U.S. military action (and certainly air-based operations) against Iraq. So, as they were in 1991, the Kurds will not be backed by the U.S., as a means to please Turkey.

Also, fewer Kurds will be willing to fight this time around. Part of that is the history from Gulf War I, part of that is because some groups of them are flourishing in Iraqi-free military zones, and are receiving international aid to boost their local economy. Some of these areas have a better standard of living than the everyday muslim Iraqi in Baghdad.

Anything can happen, though!

So in that light, here are my predictions:

1. Russia will join a coalition for military force after Powell gives his U.N. Security Council briefing. They have already hinted that Iraq needs to cooperate fully with UNSCOM 1441--no impedances. From what I understand, some of his evidence will show Iraqi's sanitizing inspection sites before inspectors arrive.

2. France will join the coalition after Russia, to salvage what they will lose financially from a war.

3. Iraq will not comply with all 16 post-Gulf War I UN resolutions. This, by the way, is the most certain of my predictions! :7

4. A smaller than Gulf War I coalition will be formed, more symbolic than substantive, but military force will start the first week of March, mostly conducted by U.S. and U.K. units who have already been deployed.

5. The U.N. will deploy a peace-keeping force shortly after the short ground war is completed. One can see from their weapons inspection report from Jan. 27, 2003, that they are playing for a place in a post-war Iraq, as they are certain Hussein will not comply.

6. U.S. and U.K. troops will disperse throughout the country, destroying remaining chemical weapons stocks, as well as the vestiges of Hussein's nuclear and bioweapons programs.

7. More hope than fact: WE WILL GET THE H*LL OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA AND IRAQ once the U.N. security forces arrive, and the weapons have been destroyed.

[Tennessee Jed]

I guess the only part of this president's policy you object to is calling daddy.

Our former president followed the plan you suggest, with the difference of calling White House interns, instead...

[mj]

Between you and "dawg" you guys are pretty darn good at reading minds. Maybe you can use your psychic power and find the real Hussian.

[Tennessee Jed]

Hmmm...if you read my post, I said "I guess", which implies uncertainty. Is your defensive reaction a possible confirmation of my conjecture?

If I was looking for the President of Iraq, I'd start off by spelling his name "Hussein", not "Hussian". Back to school for you, party boy!

[mj]

Got my point didn't you?

[mj]

And where did this part boy come From? Another example of your mind reading, "I guess".

[gaspergoo]

If I were president there wouldn't be anything to say. Iraq would have been a sheet of glass on Sept 12. We have oil rig drills that can go through glass don't we?

[Tennessee Jed]

Poor thing! Couldn't even collect yourself enough to put everything in one post...

Have fun! ;)

[mj]

Just cannot answer the question can you, have you seen anyone about this denial problem?

[Tennessee Jed]

I said "party boy", you said "part boy". Though it was tempting, I passed on that opportunity.

Anyway, "Back to school for you, party boy," was a joke. A closing, pithy comment, if you will.

You have neither confirmed nor denied support of our former president's foreign policies and domestic frolics, instead choosing to make accusations about my having psychic powers, so perhaps you are the one with the denial problem?

And since you are apparently part boy, I'll let you have the last word, since I can only guess what you are in addition to being "part boy"... Couldn't resist this time!

Good day!

[almosthaddabite]

Wow, Finally someone with a clue. You have done some homework. However, even though Bush craped on the Kurds I believe there is enough support for the getting rid of Saddam,and they need help. If they are given a big part in forming a new government in Iraq they will be an alley. We will have to convience them that we aren't lying this time. Also the No. Kurds would like their brothers to the south and any that Saddam hasn't killed to enjoy the bit of democracy that they now have.

Russia coming on board, the way they feel about NATO? That's a tough one. France, outside chance but I have seen no indication of this.

I agree the UK will send help. As far as the ground war goes,what do you feel the objectives will be? I wouldn't count on the UN for much more than medical support. As far as finding any weapons, what do you feel must be done differently than the crew that is there now?

As far as #7 I think we both know that this is very wishful thinking.

Please comment on how you feel homeside attitude and how the rest of the world is going to react with the occupation when the civillian count skyrockets and the body bags are filled and shipped home. Keep in mind the wonderful media system.

[Sunshine]

Jed,

A bit obstinate today aren't we. Let it go Boy. Those in glass houses should not cast stones (go ahead and correct my paraphrasing ;-) ).


>You have neither confirmed nor denied support of our former
>president's foreign policies and domestic frolics, instead
>choosing to make accusations about my having psychic powers,
>so perhaps you are the one with the denial problem?


Shouldn’t it be "instead choosing to make accusations about me having psychic powers"

Please enlighten me mighty one.

TGIF

[iman]

If I was the president I would take care of Iraq, but frist I would secure our borders with Meixico and Canada with our military to protect us from terrorist that have no problem right now of getting into our country.

[joe bob]

This goes a long way to demonstrate your ability to hold an intelligent debate when you base your responses on an obvious typing error and avoid the matter of the discussion.

[Sunshine]

Joe Bob,

That was exactly my point. My message was sarcastic in nature.

[almosthaddabite]

Excellent iman,

There are 3000 illegal Iraqi's who's where abouts is unknow in the US. I have not seen numbers for Saudi's, but can guess there are some. Just one more reason to question Bush's timing and method.

[Tennessee Jed]

ahab (which is short for "almosthaddabite"; you might want to rethink that one :7)

Thanks for coming back. I've done my part to contribute to the deterioration of this thread, so thanks for coming back to discuss the topic.

Russia needs a place in post-war Iraq. They most certainly will not send troops to fight, but will support a coalition. They are too weak to oppose the U.S., but strong enough to influence the future of Iraq after the war. Remember when 200 of them occupied the airport in Bosnia? At the very least they need to use the U.N. to get in-country in post-war Iraq, so they will cooperate to the degree necessary to secure a place there.

France will also need a place in post-war Iraq, and will cooperate to the degree necessary to secure a place there. And hey, how come no one here is complaining about what France is doing in Ivory Coast? What about their role in Vietnam? Loading their Jews on trains to be sent to concentration camps in WWII? Now they are suddenly the paragon of foreign policy?

The military campaign and objectives:
1. Massive cruise missile attacks to disrupt command and control (C&C) for deployment of Iraqi troops, and to prevent bio/chemical weapons utilization.
2. An air campaign, of what duration, I don't know.
3. Invasion of U.S. and Allied ground forces from Kuwaiti territory, Saudi Arabia. One goal will be to isolate formations of Republican Guard units, hopefully outside of urban areas to limit civilian casualties. If Saddam deploys units in his cities, he is taking a greater risk because there is a greater likelihood of revolt against him at this point, rather than civilians fighting the Allies. Another goal will be to divert his use of his ground forces, to allow the internal opposition to attempt a coup, if the IO is in fact viable.
4. Insertion of special forces troops at suspected nuclear/bio/chem sites, at least enough of them to "prove" we were right.
5. Insertion of special forces troops to protect oil wells. This will avert a world economic crisis, speed up the restoration of economic viability of a post-war Iraq, and prevent an enviornmental disaster--not necessarily in that order.
6. An unfortunate, and brutal possibility: an urban warfare operation aimed at clearing and occupying Baghdad, effectively displacing Hussein, if not to the point of finding him and capturing or killing him. Hopefully Saddam will flee the country somewhere between points 2&3. There are reports that during Gulf War I, he was preparing to flee to Algiers, to the point of having a plane on the tarmac with the engines running, just for that possibility.

People in the know are aware of the fact that on average about 100,000 Iraqi's die each year due to a combination of Saddam's human rights abuses, and the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq since 1991. The sanctions can be viewed as an evil from the U.N./U.S., but the average Iraqi's lifestyle has deteriorated greatly, beginning with Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980. Meanwhile, their leader's standard of living, by staying essentially the same, has far outdistanced theirs. Another reason for revolt once the military is engaged fighting the Allies.

I think "homeside" approval will at worst fluctuate wildly. I'm pretty sure there is a threshold of casualties, most certainly U.S. military, and possibly Iraqi civilian, at which the U.S. population will become unsupportive of the methodology of our policy there, but the majority of the population (given the post-State of the Union Address polls) agrees with our policy goals. I'm not sure what that threshold is, but we will all know if we reach it!

As for the U.S. press, I think about half the people in the U.S. take what they say with a grain of salt. They have a choice: make themselves relevant by reporting the truth, or report selectively to further their agendas. In peacetime we have seen certain networks lose ratings because they chose poorly. I was pleasantly surprised by most written press reports on the U.N. weapons inspection briefing on January 27, so maybe the disposition of our media isn't as bad as I think it is.

Did I miss anything?

[FrankT]

If I were president I would issue an executive order banning Waterdog from posting under every political thread under a number of phoney names. In which he agrees with his last post or tries to make it seems he has a lot of support. (now 6 names will dis me,...all akas of waterdog)

[Tennessee Jed]

Dennis:

Yep, maybe too much chicory in my coffee this morning! You could be right about the "me", "my" thing.

joe bob:

I would argue that all of mj's posts are an avoidance of intelligent debate and discussion of the topic that started this thread. His typographical errors and misspellings were just the icing on the cake for me to illustrate his deficiencies to that effect. I love it when people like mj show up using certain tactics, then object to having others turn it around on them. In fact, I'll draw it out just for fun sometimes! Good-natured people like Dennis show up to chide both of us, and people like you show up to demonstrate how myopic they are by taking the side of the original offender.

Before you judge my abilities at debate and discussion, check out my other posts on this thread, numbers 6 and 22. Not that they would overcome the obvious bias you are demonstrating here...

Have a nice life!

[Mike]

We have given evidence to the world. The United Nations has welcomed too many of the worlds opressive governments into the fold and the actions of the UN have been tainted into inaction to support the oppressive governments. As such, those who deny the WMD existance or those who are to timid to act, stand by. We are leading a coalition of forces into Iraq to remove their current leadership and assist the citizens of Iraq in establishing a new government. We will find, reveal and destroy their weapons of mass Destruction. Lets Roll!

[Tennessee Jed]

I agree that action in Iraq may motivate increased terror attacks in the U.S., but consider this.

In 1995, Osama bin Laden declared war on U.S. military personnel. In 1998, after the cruise missile attacks on his training facilities in Afghanistan, bin Laden, declared war on American civilians as well. My source for this is "Holy War, Inc.", by Peter Bergen, one of the few western journalists (CNN) who has actually interviewed bin Laden in person.

Estimates vary, but approximately 10-15% of Al Quaida is made up of Iraqi nationals. What I am saying is, do you not think that most of their plans have been in effect since 1998? To me, the only way it could get worse is if the terrorists employed bio/chem/nuclear weapons, and removal of Saddam will hopefully eliminate one potential source for them.

[GLO]

So, basically, everyone you know won't listen to these "American Politics Lite" rants, so you subject total strangers to them? Give it a rest.

[almosthaddabite]

Bin laden has billions of dollars at his disposal I would think that Al-Quida were laying plans right up to 9/11, I really don't think it would be wise to underestimate them. Considering the sophistication of these plans who knows how long it would take them to unfold.

It would not go unnoticed if they were to push these plans up to coincide with an attack on Iraq. I believe this would be an additional effect.

[almosthaddabite]

Very much in agreement re: The French. As far as war, a history of gutlessness, who cares about them.

As far as 1-6, as far as I know that's the plan. I just don't agree with it. This type of warfare just doesn't work anymore. You get a lot of killing done but doesn't paint a good big picture. There are some who actually think it will boost the economy. No way will it help our already tarnished image.

400 plus missiles per day plus additional arial bombing adds up to lots of dead civilians. They got away with it in 91 but everyone is ready now. Besides, it's just not right, isn't this supposed to be what we are trying to halt??

What effect did 9/11 have on the economy? How will this effect the economy, my IRA's indicate it hasn't helped so far. The memory of returning from Viet Nam is not that clouded, this country is divided on this right now, get out and talk to a cross section of people not just your friends.

My main concern is the returning troops, look at our history. How can any American be anything but ashamed by the way the government has discarded returning warriors. Sixtythousand suicides Jed.

I agree that Saddam has to go, maybe for different reasons than you but the key word in doing this right is clandestine.

[Tim FRick]

Boy it sure is a long winter! You boys have too much time on your hands to be fighting about something that is way over everybodies head. Everybody claims they know what to do or what's going to happen. I guess opinions are like a__-holes everybody has one. Lifes too short to fight about something we can't control. Find some water and do some fishing. Pray for nice calm, slow warming spring!!
Good Luck!!
Tim FRick

[LDC]

I would bomb all of his palaces(sp)and make the guy live in a cave.

Larry

[Tennessee Jed]

Hey, I never welcomed you back from Vietnam! Thanks for what you did, sir, and I hope you realize how sincerely glad I am that you made it back.

Well, my points 1-5 were essentially what made up the first Gulf War (except for the role of Special Forces troops), and proved quite effective for military and humanitarian purposes, if you will recall. The two major variables here are the disposition of Hussein's troops, and the support of his civilian population. Civilian casualties were at a minimum in Gulf War I because of the accuracy of the cruise missile and air campaign attacks. Just because more cruise missiles will be used this time doesn't mean more civilians will be killed. The strategy here is to thoroughly destroy military infrastructure from as great a distance as possible, and they are probably going to send more cruise missiles per target this time, as opposed to selecting more targets overall.

I've already commented on how deploying Iraqi troops in highly populated civilian areas could be a double-edged sword for Saddam. I will only add that I hope he posts them in lightly populated areas, for the purpose of isolation and defeat with little or no civilian casualties. Yahoo!News is gleefully reporting that Saddam has evicted some Kurds in northern Iraq to better dispose a group of Iranian Mujahideen in blocking an invasion from the north, so hopefully his regular army units will follow suit. 'Bout time our press started reporting enemy troop movements instead of our own!

Occupation of Iraq could work out like things did for you in Vietnam, or as they are currently in Afghanistan. The fighting in Afghanistan is being initiated by remnants of the Taliban and possibly Al Quaida; I haven't seen any information to indicate that they are successfully recruiting Afghani's to fight against the Allies. Most new recruits--and it's just a trickle now, mind you--are coming from Pakistan and the Arab countries. I'll put this in all caps so no one misses it: THE RECRUITMENT OF NEW MUSLIM FIGHTERS FOR WAR AGAINST THE ALLIES IN AFGHANISTAN IS PALTRY COMPARED TO HOW IT WAS WHEN THEY FOUGHT THE SOVIETS. I tend to believe this says volumes about our methods, motives, and purpose, vs. the Soviets and the muslim terrorists (Taliban/AQ) themselves. I think you'll agree that recruitment for North Vietnam and the Viet Cong was much less of a problem for Ho Chi Minh.

Bin Laden will have to be real creative to access his billions of dollars from this point forward. And be careful about using increased terror attacks as part of your argument. If we attempt to contain Hussein indefinitely with U.N. inspectors henceforth, that gives the terrorists more time and initiative to link up with him for their materials in a bio/chem/nuclear attack. If they are going to be more active after the war, why wouldn't they be more active while he is under pressure--with the ability to arm them--as well?

No one really knows if this will be another Vietnam. In fact, we didn't learn until too late that Vietnam was "Vietnam." But I can assure you that most of the American public learned from that war that any frustration about the war should not be directed at our returning troops. Woe unto the few who haven't learned that lesson.

You may find comfort in what some Vietnam Veterans' groups have to say about the suicide rate. I'll give you a link, and leave it at that. Hopefully you are aware of my supportive position of Vietnam vets. http://www.vhcma.org/fact.html

I agree that clandestine activity would be the best way to go, but it is quite possibly beyond the grasp of this situation in the appropriate future, in my opinion.

Shoot, this is getting long. On the economy: I personally wouldn't base this decision on its economical effects, either way. If I told you how much I've lost in the past year alone, you wouldn't believe it, but to me the reason for action against Hussein is based in principles and potential consequences far beyond it's effect on our economy.

[Democrat]

Joe, it would be lovely to travel first class and I appreciate the offer, but I must decline. First of all, I'm not in the human shield business. Maybe you could interest a liberal who favors gun control, we have too many of them in our party and can spare a few. Try to get one that's politically correct. Second, I'm not interested in visiting that he!!-hole called Iraq, but if you'll extend your offer to include France, I'll take you up on it. I've always wanted to visit the wine country, and sit at one of those sidewalk cafes you see in Van Gogh pictures, sipping Bordeaux. Alternatively, Italy and the Louvre would be very fine. Third, I've never been a big fan of Shakespeare's suggestion to kill off all the lawyers, I have a vested interest in that one. But rest assured I feel your pain. There are some lawyers I'd like to kill myself, but we'll save that one for another day. No, I'm not one of those people who gets to travel first class to exotic lands. But I'll be perfectly content to cruise around in the new Esox Magnum I ordered this week, looking for muskies while those human shield types eat cordite. I don't need much, that's all it takes to make me ecstatically happy.

[Tennessee Jed]

Congrats on finally breaking down and getting that primo muskie boat, ya old tightwad, you!!! :7 :7 :7

[Gilligan]

I would hire George W to keep doing what he is doing and I would go fishing!

[WAeyes]

I would do whatever the majority of the Walleye Central crowd wanted me to do. ;)

[Democrat]

You can't imagine how much trouble I went through to get that ##### boat.

[cardo]

Why do we have to look so hard for support. What have France or Germany done for us in the long run. We have helped them more than they could ever help us. The next time they need assistance or even money maybe we should be just as indifferent.

[sevenmmm]

I can not come up with a one paragraph answer to these questions dog. If you could get me an invite to those intelligence briefings the Real President gets, I sure would give it a try!

[Water Dog]

I saw this question in one of the threads and thought it was worth discussion.
Ya the one paragraph limit is an unrealistic requirement. But REALLY folks, besides some kind of war/attack, what ARE our options?

Dawg

[List of Options]

1) Give the inspectors the time they need
2) Try to resolve the situation by diplomacy, economic sanctions & international pressure
3) If SH has WMD prevent use with deterrence
4) Selective bombing of suspected WMD facilities
5) If invasion is necessary, get the world's approval and act in concert with other nations instead of going it alone
6) Ignore the U.N., invade Iraq with a handful of allies, and piss off the rest of the world jeopardizing U.S. interests (e.g., getting kicked out of overseas military bases, lack of cooperation in future crises, etc.)

[billy fishingpole]

Let's not forget the reason why old shakespeare's character wanted to get rid of lawyers. A lot easier to rule with tyranny that way...