This is going to be VERY interesting

Remove all ads!

Dorian,

The fact that you think that an impeached president "came out clean" shows that you are either naive or a blind leftist. Either way, your posts no longer carry any weight with me.

 

I find it kinda amusing how Clinton came in trouble as a result of the ridiculous Lewinsky affair. I mean Mitterand was publicly known to have a maitress, and most french just said: "Wow, that old bastard still has life in his [edited away in a futile attempt not to be sexually offensive] !"

And in the US the opposition tries to topple him because of something like that Amazing. In trial an accused person has the right not to incriminate himself. And that's what he did when he lied about his affair with Lewinski. And more, these were really private things IMO, things you usually don't promote publicly.

But seemingly this principle isn't applicable for presidents, right? Or is it that presidents have to be a shiny example morally, and generally? Come on! A prudent politician is worth his weight in gold, that should IMO be more important than his affairs!

 

Ragusa,

I the US legal system a person has the right to use their 5th amendment rights not to incriminate themselves, but that also means that they cannot testify at all. In other words, you swear to answer all questions truthfully, or you refuse to answer any questions. Lying under oath is very serious, regardless of what it is the lie is about. This issue was not about sex, but about whether or not Willie had abused his presidential powers.

 

Getting back to the original topic, the war is certainly getting interesting -- American soliders captured, more casualties and resistance than expected, there are no liberation parades as was expected, and it looks like despite the coalition's best initial efforts, Saddam and Tariq are still alive.

I also find the coalition's drive interestng. From what I saw, they are bypassing cities, "containing" them, on their way to Baghdad. They'll "clean up" those nodes of resistance later. I'm no genius, but I see some real dangers to doing that.

 

When did he get impeached?

 

Here is a URL with links to info regarding the Clinton impeachment

http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/98/december/nw1223-2.htm

Depaara,

More casualties and resistance than who expected?

There cannot be any liberation parades if, as you state, we are not going into the cities to liberate them.

The cruise missle attack on Saddam's bunker was a roll of the dice from what I have read. I have also read that at this point the military fully expected them to still be alive.

Yes I agree it is dangerous to bypass these cities, but if the coalition takes Baghdad, it is believed that the rest of the resistance will fade away.

By the way, after all the doom and gloom did you catch the news that the Shiites are rebeling against the Baaths in Basra.

Fox News Story here.

[ March 25, 2003, 21:26: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Uh-huh, so America just believes that Saddam is their only enemy in the middle-east

 

Morgoth,


You said:

I guess I was not clear enough. The discussion is about Iraq, not the entire Middle East. I believe (an opinion backed by some of what I have heard the US and British military leaders say on the radio) that by taking out the military and political leaders in Baghdad, many of the remaining forces in the cities that have been bypassed will simply melt away. There is some risk that these forces will attack the coalition from behind, but that it is doubtful as they would have to come out into the open where they are easy targets for aircraft and artillery.

 

Yeah, they also claim bombing the cities will be good for the decrement (is that a real word?? ) of enemy morale

Someone hasnt been paying attention to the history books.

The Middle-east is a very unstable region, and they wont really like "Arrogant America" using force upon one of their "muslim-brothers"

 

They may not disapate, but they really can't mount an effective attack, so we put up with what little they can do in hopes that by cutting off the head... Not saying that you are wrong, but it is a chance the military is willing to take. I have no doubt that you are correct on your last point.

 

Do I understand you right? You ignore the arabs possibly opposing the US action because they can't hold a stand against the US militarily? You're amazingly optimistic, maybe overconfident or naive even. Israel, one of the world's best equipped and most professional militaries, was driven out of lebanon by an unprofessional low tech rag-tag militia named hizbollah. That can happen to other modern armies again; when the price in blood becomes too high political support at home disappears.

 

I was referring to the reactions of the civilians in the few places they have entered.

If the Americans simply went in, "weapons free", they would lose a lot fewer soldiers. They don't want to do that, though, because a "weapons free" policy would see a lot of civilian deaths. It's the American desire to do this with as few civilians lost as possible that makes this war so dangerous to the Americans.

As for the silliness of the "rules of war", everyone expects the U.S. to follow these rules, and calls foul if they don't. When Saddam's troops use the cover of the white flag to stage an ambush, people say "well, they'll do whatever it takes against a technologically superior foe." I say if we're going to drop the rules of war, they should drop for both sides, or they should stay up for both sides. Like i said earlier, the U.S. could do some really spectacularily brutal things and end this war tomorrow (even without a nuke) but they're not. The Iraqis had better pray that they don't annoy the States too much with their violations of long standing war conduct rules

 

Clinton was never impeached.None of those links ever say Clinton was impeached no history book says he was impeached...it never happpened.

 

1) Was Clinton impeached? Yes and no.

The House 'impeached' Clinton. The Senate didn't follow through. It's all easy to find in the links above.

2) This place has a lot of military experts given that I haven't seen their Westpoint or similar credentials. Kinda reminds me of armchair quarterbacking.

I personally don't feel qualified to determine when a military commander is being smart or not and will wait to see the results and what the real experts have to say after the fact to venture a guess. After all, how else is someone without any more qualification than having read a couple of books going to really have any basis for an informed opinion?

One way or the other there will be plenty of crow to go around here in the future.

[ March 26, 2003, 04:19: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I have always stressed that the US are IMO making political mistakes rather than military ones. I'm well aware my military expertise and experience is only on a corporal's level so please excuse my lack of qualification. AFAIK some more here on SP have also only done military service, but, of course, not on general staff's level. If you expect that you're on the wrong forum Laches.

IMO it's a questionable point of view to just say "Our leaders will know where and when they send our troops in!" or "Our president will do he right thing, won't he? - In the end he's president!" With a mindset like that german soldiers after WW-II woke up in horror, having done nothing but their duty.

That view is understandable for a soldier, it's actually his duty to think so, but please, don't expect us to think the same. Would my country draft me again I would have to think the same about their path of action, but anyway, this is not my countries war, so I may, unsanctioned, doubt and question as much as I want.

This war is quite an emotional thing, for a lot of people in the US and here, in old europe. It's not at all surprising that even uninformed and unqualified armchair warriors and strategists find themselves discussing military issues after beeing fed by the media with details and bits about the campaign at the gulf - so Depaara obviously referred to Rumsfeld's press conference (where he told the white flag episode) yesterday. That is completely normal in a conflict. I actually find those who have never been in the military and prefer and praise military action much more disturbing. Relax Laches.

[ March 26, 2003, 06:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Don't get so defensive Ragusa. The post wasn't aimed at political posts. Nor was it aimed at those who were criticizing the war strategy. It was aimed at those criticizing and praising the war strategy in such an assertive manner as to indicate that because of their experience playing Warcraft 3 online they thought they were qualified to criticize or praise the details of military tactics/strategy etc.

No need to get your panties in a wad, I was being equally critical.

 

Hm. That's interesting.

What if I watch television and I see a french general saying that the military leadership of the U.S. made some big mistakes, that their supply lines are pretty weak and their running into an terrible urban-fight in Bagdad and his educated guess is, that Bagdad is going to like grozny in the end. With heavy U.S. and civilian losses.

Am I allowed to post this on this forum ? Or do I need some military expirience to repeat his words ?

 

You're allowed to post anything you'd like on these forums as long as whatever you post follows the rules pinned at the top of the board -- I have no say over this.

I didn't say what someone could and could not say. I just pointed out that there is going to be a lot of crow to go around, one way or the other (see that, I'm talking about both sides with that phrase, I used it earlier too) given the strong declarations present on this board with regards to military tactics. Go back and read my initial post. Lots of arm chair quarterbacking going on given we are at the one week mark and we have no idea yet how things are going to work out.

And isn't that the starting point for how you evaluate things if you don't have any qualifications? You ask, 'well, did it work?' One thing I've noticed is that whenever there is a large gathering watching a game invariably they'll start shouting opinions about the game and how stupid one coach or the other is for their decisions. Invariably, this always comes back and bites someone in the ass. I was simply pointing out that people might think about what they say before they say it, particularly when they've no experience on the subject. It isn't as if the opinions on this board with regards to tactics are being couched in a cautious manner; just seemed imprudent to me.

I'm sure that someone will object to something here. Just please don't put words into my mouth. I'm not telling you what you can or can't write, just noting how many people have no real support for it, including myself. Have at it, think I'm done.

 

My military training consists of high school social studies, some University history and poli sci courses, several documentaries, some talks with my father (a WW2 vet) and a dash of common sense. However, Laches point is well taken. I'd like to believe that the guys running the show know more about it than I do. We can armchair quarterback, 20/20 hindsight, etc. all we want, and I think it's good mental exercise to do so, but given the fact (so frequently re-iterated to us by Ragusa, Shoshino, and Joacqin) that we don't know the whole story, we are not in a position at the present moment to really judge the whole picture.

So don't bail on us, Laches! You were misunderstood, but that doesn't make you opinions less valid! I'll be the first to admit that I'll probably be munching on Brandon Lee's soul quite a bit in the next few weeks.