What's the hurry?

shotamoose

I dunno if anyone else is taken aback at just how keen the US is to start a war in the next week or two weeks tops. Where did this deadline of March 17 come from, and why was the ostensibly reasonable suggestion of Chile to give Iraq 3 weeks to meet new conditions so contemptuously rejected?

I heard somewhere that American weapons wouldn't work as well in the heat of summer, but sure so what? They're still going to win, aren't they?

But it seems I was missing the real point. The war has to start so soon because American soldiers won't like fighting in summer. At least, that's the impression I get from this story in the New York Times. To quote:

"The French are just not credible on this," said Senator Richard G. Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "It's all well and good for the French to say that our troops should sit out there in the desert for a while, and what's the hurry? There aren't 200,000 French troops out there."

"It would be almost a form of physical torture to make our forces stay there and fight in the summer," Mr. Lugar continued. "Ultimately the president is not going to stand for that. Neither would I. When the French are willing to put some of their own troops on the line, then maybe we might listen to them."

My mind fairly boggled at that line in the second paragraph. The US army must commence bombing the soldiers, conscripts, civilians, water lines, roads, bridges and electricity grids of Iraq because to wait any longer would be 'a form of torture' for its own personnel , ie trained soldiers.

Funny how you lose perspective at times like this - I had thought that the main considerations in all this were the threats to people, peace and international relations posed by the respective sides in the conflict. But no, it's all about how serious the itch on the trigger fingers of 250,000 human killing machines can be allowed to become.

Sorry, but tough sh1t. Let the people who wanted this war wait for it, and let the people who signed up to fight stew.

Éomer of Rohan

Funny how you lose perspective at times like this - I had thought that the main considerations in all this were the threats to people, peace and international relations posed by the respective sides in the conflict. But no, it's all about how serious the itch on the trigger fingers of 250,000 human killing machines can be allowed to become.

Sorry, but tough sh1t. Let the people who wanted this war wait for it, and let the people who signed up to fight stew.

Or send them home to their families / base to avoid pointless deaths as a result of an ultimately pointless war?

mike65

If the war on Saddams regime is going to happen anyway, then it makes sense to get on with it.

I'm sure the opressed ppl of Iraq are sick and tired of waiting...

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

I'm sure the opressed ppl of Iraq are sick and tired of waiting...

LOL - are you being serious or sarcastic???
I am sure they ARE sick and tired of waiting to be bombed out of existence before being forced to endure the torment of pro - American propaganda (which the US are poor at in presidential and congressional elections so how the hell will they manage against the Iraqis??) and then neo liberal reforms and then a state visit by President Bush - those poor people. I bet some almost wish that they could keep Saddam.

mike65

Okay Eomer gloves off - Who's rule would you sooner live under?

Saddam Hussains or George W Bushes. Please think for a moment as I want a serious answer please.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

Surely you cannot seriously be comparing the two? Under entirely different systems? Under a democratic regime, Saddam Hussein. Under a dictatorship - if I had to live under such a regime; Saddam Hussein.

Éomer of Rohan

Allow me to explain; under a democratic regime such a parliamentarian democracy as in the UK, Saddam's own qualities would not really affect the system as there are checks and balances. This is assuming the whole Ba'ath Party don't have a representational majority in the commons (I am sticking with the Brit model as I know it best). In a dictatorship, I actually think that GWB would be more unstable and might actually force us all to have bible readings and such rubbish; I am fiercely anti-theist.

davelerave

yeh ,the troops are ready ,i agree that the iraqis want rid of him but at what cost ,it seems immoral just bombing the **** out of the place,i guess any other way would mean higher casualties for the US, its not really a war as the US has air supremacy from the start and can bomb at will.

Éomer of Rohan

To which we can add land supremacy, naval supremacy, electronic intelligence supremacy, reconnaisance supremacy etc etc etc. The words 'turkey shoot' come to mind.

bonkey

The date of March 17th was hosen for a very specific reason, which is only hinted at in the press releases etc. quoited here to date.

It is not that fighting in summer would be "a form of torture". Rather, it is a case that it will be too hot for the soldier's to be able to wear their chem/bio protection and still be able to function in any capacity.

This would leave the US in a very odd position, because they would either have to call off their plans till winter, or explain to the world how they could justify sending soldiers without chem/bio protection after the madman they were looking to oust because he had chemical and biological weapons and wasnt afraid to use them .

jc

DadaKopf

I mean, I know it's neither smart nor honest for a government to pretend that the rush to war is due to a failure of the political process but the US has always chosen this time if year for an attack due to weather. But should we be surprised? Every army is dictated to by the weather, with relation to their hardware. That's why most military campaigns until Napoleon were waged in spring and summer.

It's just the lying that wrests any credibility away from the Republicans' rhetoric.

Éomer of Rohan

It's just the lying that wrests any credibility away from the Republicans' rhetoric

Not that they had any in the first place.