Stormin' Norman Reserved about War - The real Stormin' Norma

[Stormin Norman]

I thought you guys might find this interesting. Norman Schwartzkopf has shown serious concern about going to war in 2003.

From: USATODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-19-iraq_x.htm)

-Retired Army general Norman Schwarzkopf, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, said there is a difference between fighting to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 and fighting to topple Saddam today.

"If we invade Iraq and the regime is very close to falling, I'm very, very concerned that the Iraqis will, in fact, use weapons of mass destruction," Schwarzkopf said.-


This is a perfect example of the legitimate debate that anti-American groups like "Not in Our Name" and the Hollywood leftists are too ignorant to engage in. I stand behind my statement that their is a difference between sedition and dissent. What the anti-war demonstrators are engaged in borders on sedition.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 12:27 am on Jan. 30, 2003)

[TXsocialist]

uhm no... not interesting at all...

[Anonymous]

ohhh a war will happen... inside US... one day... the proletariat will get tired of this oil wars... and revolt.... it will be a bloody yet glorious day...

the day, the proletariat will bury you....

[Anonymous]

Quote: from the anarchist on 11:46 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
ohhh a war will happen... inside US... one day... the proletariat will get tired of this oil wars... and revolt.... it will be a bloody yet glorious day...

the day, the proletariat will bury you....

Are you drunk again?

[Anonymous]

nope....

just very realistic and positive...

[canikickit]

-Retired Army general Norman Schwarzkopf, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, said there is a difference between fighting to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 and fighting to topple Saddam today.

"If we invade Iraq and the regime is very close to falling, I'm very, very concerned that the Iraqis will, in fact, use weapons of mass destruction," Schwarzkopf said.-

I've often seen this point raised before and considered it myself. Quite obvious, perhaps I begin to understand some of your disdain.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from the anarchist on 6:46 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
ohhh a war will happen... inside US... one day... the proletariat will get tired of this oil wars... and revolt.... it will be a bloody yet glorious day...

the day, the proletariat will bury you....


Then you will wake up and your mom will change the sheets for you.

[sabre]

haha good one CI and anarchist u need to mellow out son

[Red Revolution]

"If we invade Iraq and the regime is very close to falling, I'm very, very concerned that the Iraqis will, in fact, use weapons of mass destruction"

Duhhhhhh, This is no dought the first american to think of this, or to even have a concience about people other than americans!!!

[Tkinter1]

"ohhh a war will happen... inside US... one day... the proletariat will get tired of this oil wars... and revolt.... it will be a bloody yet glorious day...

the day, the proletariat will bury you.... "

OooOOOoo

[truthaddict11]

SN should he be kicked out for being an"anti american vermin"

(Edited by truthaddict11 at 5:27 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

[Hampton]

What the anti-war demonstrators are engaged in borders on sedition.

And you say Not in Our Name is ignorant?

[Sol]

Showing 'concern' about a war based solely on political gain = Dissent

Rising in staunch opposition to said war = Sedition

So, yeah, I guess you're right then Norm...
Maybe a return to the old Internment Camp system would show us leftists some pride hm?

[kylie]

null

[Stormin Norman]

-Like Bush said last night, no outside influence will effect the destiny of the United States. If the Europeans decide to boycott us, which they won't, we shall see who needs who.

-We will not be blackmailed with the threat of further terrorism against us. The argument you make claiming that we will suffer an NBC attack if we go after the very weapons you accurately point out we may be the targets of, is a self defeating one. It only provides further reason for the need to nuetralize that specific threat.

[kylie]

null

[Stormin Norman]

You're pretty gullible aren't you? If you believe Saddam to be complying with Resolution 1441, then this is most definetely the case.

[kylie]

null

[Stormin Norman]

i see you have chosen to ignore the hypocritical nature of the US reasoning for attacking Iraq, which has been pointed out to you.

Mind pointing this out for me again. I must have missed it. Please describe what you are talking about so I can pick that apart as well.

[kylie]

null

[Stormin Norman]

I would argue that bringing a democratic form of government to that part of the world would most definetely reduce the threat of terrorism. Fearing of awakening the hornets nest is nothing in comparison to the damage that NBC weapons can result in. I would much rather fight the enemy who hads conventional weapons than biological weapons, and that is why it is important to disarm the enemy before they can disseminate these miniscule weapons to terrorist cells around the world.

[Stormin Norman]

Your assumption that the threat Iraq poses is small is a niave one. Read this thread entitled "Chemical Weapons suits found in mosque" (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1494&start=20). As you can see, it may be too late to stop terrorist cells from acquiring these weapons. However, it would be ridiculous not to address the threat at this stage of the game. In addition, we must not allow ourselves to operate out out of weakness. If it is known that this type of blackmail works, more incidents of international terrorism with WMD will occur in the future. We must quash this trend now!

[Michael De Panama]

So basically, the reason you feel this anti-war argument is more intelligent than most arguments is that it shares your unfounded paranoia that Saddam Hussein has reserved plans to smoke us with unauthorized Weapons Of Mass Destruction the UN weapons inspectors have yet to prove the existance of, which is precisely what Bush is justifying the war upon. Or perhaps that Saddam is going to drop some of those 11 empty warheads on our big toes and make us cry. Right?

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 2:09 pm on Jan. 30, 2003)

[kylie]

null

[suffianr]

Call me a cynic, but I'd reckon that the purpose of the real Stormin' Norman's comments about the situation in Iraq is less about enhancing the credibility of military intelligence than attempting to portray a moderate, cautious approach in the higher echelons of US military leadership...

Just as a chef is only as good as his last meal, retired generals' opinions can only go as far as their track records in previous conflicts. If you think old Norman did a great job in Round One, you'll think he really knows his shit. But if, like the majority of Americans who actually have informed opinions about their military commanders (Westmoreland? McNamara? Who?), you'd think the sweet old man is just in on the gameplan, and he's going to try to make you accept Round Two as diplomatically as possible...

[Blibblob]

dammit, with smart ppl like Stormin Norman with some influence. Communists will never revolt in the US, that fucking sucks... When you gonna die man?

[Stormin Norman]

So basically, the reason you feel this anti-war argument is more intelligent than most arguments is that it shares your unfounded paranoia that Saddam Hussein has reserved plans to smoke us with unauthorized Weapons Of Mass Destruction the UN weapons inspectors have yet to prove the existance of, which is precisely what Bush is justifying the war upon. Or perhaps that Saddam is going to drop some of those 11 empty warheads on our big toes and make us cry. Right?

Unfounded paranoia? Look up who the experts are in the field. Then see what they have to say about the matter. Go the the library and do some research on the subject. then come back and tell me how unfounded my concern over weapons of mass destruction is. Please don't make me commemorate you once again.

[ravengod]

yeah war sucks
its not that brave nowadays
although i would like to see usa being trashed down

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

If Saddam has nukes, he will fire them of as soon as the US troops reach to Bagdad's gates. That means that all you pro-war fuckers will die if Iraq really had nukes.

Did you really think that the USA would attack a nation that actually has nukes?

They left Pakistan, Russia, India alone because one footstep of an invasion army on their soils would mean the end of the American people, it would certainly cost the world.

If Iraq really had nukes, Saddam would only be one finger push away from the destruction of Washington. Washington doesn't want to risk that to liberate a foreign nation from it's dictator.

We all know the past.

FFS accept it. Don't be so stubborn.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CCCP on 7:41 pm on Jan. 31, 2003
If Saddam has nukes, he will fire them of as soon as the US troops reach to Bagdad's gates. That means that all you pro-war fuckers will die if Iraq really had nukes.

Did you really think that the USA would attack a nation that actually has nukes?

They left Pakistan, Russia, India alone because one footstep of an invasion army on their soils would mean the end of the American people, it would certainly cost the world.

If Iraq really had nukes, Saddam would only be one finger push away from the destruction of Washington. Washington doesn't want to risk that to liberate a foreign nation from it's dictator.

We all know the past.

FFS accept it. Don't be so stubborn.

Of course we would attack a nation that has nukes. We don't subscribe to deterrence when we hold a vast advantage in #'s and delivery capability.

Even with nukes, saddam can only deliver ther intra-theatre. He would be nuking his own land.

He can't deliver nukes to the US unless he smuggles one in.