Re: Der Krieg kommt - Beitrag zur aktuellen Macht

verfasst von Emerald, 14.07.2002, 22:22

>YES TO WAR
>The global geo-political door has slammed shut behind the United States just as it has slammed shut behind Iraq, the Middle East and Europe. In fact, it has slammed shut behind the entire world. Why? At President Bush's press conference on July 8, he was asked this question:
>"Mr President, regardless of how and when, is it your firm intention to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?"
>President Bush replied as follows:
>"Yes".
>But he didn't stop there:
>"It's the stated policy of this government to have a regime change. And it hasn't changed."
>"And we'll use ALL THE TOOLS at our disposal to do so."
>"I'm involved."
>"I mean, I'm involved - in the military planning, diplomatic planning, financial planning, all the aspects of reviewing all the tools at MY disposal."
>(Emphasis - capitalisation - by The Privateer)
>Mr Bush, without any consultation with Congress, has voiced his starkly-stated intention to go to war. On top of that, there are two other items in this quote from Mr Bush which are of VAST importance.
>First, he used the words -"ALL THE TOOLS" - in reference to the military means he plans to employ. This implies the use of a military"tool" which the U.S. has not used since 1945 - NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Second, he states that these"tools" are -"at MY disposal". This can only mean that the U.S. military belongs to HIM.
>Mr Bush has set the United States straight. Clearly, according to his statement, it is a Constitutional misunderstanding that the U.S. armed forces belongs to the American nation and that only Congress holds the Constitutionally-vested power to declare war. Now, by the statement of the President, the American nation, its Constitution and its Congress have here all been set aside - and:
>One man, President George W. Bush, has granted himself the power to MAKE WAR.
>The Build Up - The War And The Aftermath:
>After this press conference, President Bush cannot retreat. To retreat from the statements he made would cause an ever climbing wave of laughter to roll across the entire globe. Not only would the United States stand as the laughing stock of the world, but vastly more important, inside the United States, the entire Bush Administration would stand with a stunned American nation looking at all of these men, followed by a nationwide wave of revulsion, followed by a total and utter political collapse.
>A U.S. military build-up in the Middle East now has to follow. That will not be easy. There is not one single nation which has opened its doors to a vastly expanded presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East. To"park" a now estimated 200,000 - 250,000 US and British troops in the small Gulf States would make for some of the most target-rich and concentrated troop deployment areas yet seen in modern warfare. Confined, or more precisely compacted into these small available areas, these troops would be a military temptation to Iraq of the first possible order. A pre-emptive strike by Iraq into these small areas as the U.S. troop build-up takes place would place President Bush in a situation in which he would have to respond to the Iraqi strike before his build-up was complete.
>Presupposing that Iraq does NOT launch an early strike, the U.S. could complete its military build-up without interference and place the U.S. attacking land forces at launch points of an exceptionally narrow character, requiring a fast break through whatever defences Iraq has set. This would have to be followed by a fast U.S. advance into more open areas where wider deployment and therefore mobile manoeuvres are possible. Then, most likely, would follow a very fast U.S. advance to the approaches to Baghdad. This is where the problem is.
>If Saddam Hussein has decided to go down fighting, militarily the U.S. does not have many real choices. Yes, the U.S. can surround Baghdad and call for its surrender. If that does not happen, the U.S. can simply lay siege to the city, day after day, week after week, trying to starve it out. Politically, that is not an option. As the days passed, the entire Arab World would be in ever greater turmoil with"extremists" threatening regimes from Indonesia and Malaysia to regimes on the Atlantic coast. The U.S. cannot afford to lay siege to Baghdad.
>That means that if Saddam decides to fight to the finish, the U.S. will be faced with a main assault upon a fortified city. And that means high U.S. casualties. It also means very high civilian casualties amongst the inhabitants of the city of Baghdad, so high as to look indistinguishable from mass murder. NO main assault upon a defended city during WW II had any other outcome - to attackers, defenders, or civilians.
>Strategically, there is NO doubt that the U.S. could win such a war all on its own. But after a huge preparatory air campaign, followed by a ground advance, followed by a main assault on a large fortified city, the U.S. would stand as victor over a nation of 22 million people which would be in total ruins. To then simply walk away would be impossible. With the civil infrastructure ruined, millions of people inside Iraq would simply die, en masse, from exposure, lack of food, and disease.
>Even such a militarily certain U.S. victory would require a near global"rescue" of the millions who survived, followed by a rebuilding of the required civilian infrastructure to support and sustain a population of about 22 million. This, the post-war rescue followed by the required re-building, would cost many Billions of Dollars. And it would be mainly the United States who would pay for it.
>The U.S."grand finale" would, of geo-political necessity, be a decades-long occupation of Iraqi territory. Any other course would leave the Bush Administration with NOTHING to show to the American people as"compensation" for their own losses. It would also leave the U.S. political establishment with nothing.
>Having"won" the war, the U.S. would stand as an occupation force in the midst of a"sea" of Muslims - just like Israel but on a vastly greater scale. That would guarantee an ongoing wave of U.S. casualties.

Ich habe schon vor vielen MOnaten hier festgestellt, dass W.G.Bush der schwächste
US-Präsident der letzten 100 Jahre wäre. Er lässt sich instrumental-
isieren, weil er die Welt in Schwarz und Weiss einteilt, wie ein Blinder.
An diesem Fiasko-Präsidenten werden Millionen von Menschen zugrunde gehen,
aber ich frage mich allen Ernst' heute nochmals, wer und wo sind die Top-Boys
welche im Hintergrund diese Maschinerie steuern - es ist nicht der US-Präsident
- sondern gewiefte und eingeseifte Financiers und Profiteure, (Strippen-Zieher)
welche später die Rosinen davon ernten.

Rückschlüsse vom Board willkommen.

Emerald.

<center>

<HR>

</center>

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• Der Krieg kommt - Beitrag zur aktuellen Macht - R.Deutsch, 14.07.2002, 20:29
  • Re: Der Krieg kommt - Beitrag zur aktuellen Macht - Emerald, 14.07.2002, 22:22
    • Re: Der Krieg kommt - Beitrag zur aktuellen Macht - Chrizzy, 15.07.2002, 01:48