war with Iraq

[cocknbull]

I have been hearing alot of people talking "bit-hing" about how more furloughs will come and how the industry will loose more money when we go and take care of Saddam.

I myself take a different opinion on this. A war with Iraq will be short. So for maybe two weeks the stock market will tank. But once we are in control of the country it will be a much different story. The benifits will outway the negatives and any furloughs that take place will happen as a result of a failed business plans not war. Infact after the short war the industry will be better off. History has shown that post war the economy rebounds. The early 90's were different since the economy had to shift from a cold war defense economy to civilian economy. We should also expect a dramatic change in oil prices which should help the industry.

I don't think its fair to blame an event that hasn't happened yet on a war that may in fact have a positive influence on the industry.

 

[Dep676]

I heard on the news some people say it will be good for the airline industry if we go to war. Nobody knows what will happen. We will just have to wait and see and hope for the best.

 

[mar]

Whistling past the graveyard

Go ahead. Tell yourself whatever you need to believe.

Do you realize that American Airlines just posted a $500+ million QUARTERLY loss?

Delta ain't far behind.

More furloughs are coming. More failings will happen and I don't think it's because of "failed business plans."

Furthermore, a short war is not good for any economy. I agree that WWII was a shot in the arm due to all the manufacturing jobs created *then*--but it's a little different now isn't it?

Now we have exported all of those well paying manufacturing jobs to other countries and our military flies mostly 20-30 year (sometimes 50-year old) aircraft.

You don't actually think we're gonna start building new airplanes for a one month "war" do you?

Hunker down friends. It's gonna be a long haul.

 

[flydoc]

I hope you are right about the war "being short." I, however, do not share your optimism on this subject.

The chances that this war will resemble the first Gulf War are slim. The objectives are entirely different. Then, we were ousting an occupying force from another country. Now, we are looking at attacking a sovereign nation on their home soil, with the threat of lengthy urban warfare on an infrastructure that has had 12 years to rebuild since we last fought. Yes we do dominate them in the air, but a war was never won with air power alone. The guy on the ground with a pair of boots and a rifle---that is what wins a war. How will America respond when we start lining the tarmac with shiny metal boxes filled with our sons and daughters? How will nations that choose to support us react when the same happens to them? When Iraq is pressed into a corner and they start using some of these weapons of mass destruction that they say they don't have, will America respond in kind? Do you think the international community will continue to support us when we sink to the same level as Iraq using the same weapons(if not worse, as I'm sure our capability far outweighs Iraq's in this matter)?

Even when we do defeat Iraq, (which I know we will, militarily at least) how will the economy be effected by post-war reparations, rebuilding and human-aid assistance to the Iraqi people? What about the occupying force that will be sure to be needed in the country for years to come?

Even after all of this is accomplished, the terrorist threat will still exist. These people are zealots. They have a strong belief that what they are doing is right and a willingness to die for it. Look at what they did with a few box cutters. Imagine what they will do with nuclear weapons....

To paraphrase a great patriot, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it..."

Didn't mean to get on a rant. Good luck with your job search

 

[cocknbull]

If the airlines aren't using failed business models then why are they loosing so much money. I don't expect the markets and the economy to turn around because of alot of war time production. In fact I would rather see most US production go to the civilian sector. The markets are volital right now because of the uncertain war in Iraq, high oil prices, and all of the "paper" companies going under. As soon as we can either blow Saddam of the planet or just leave him be the better off we are. All of those .com companies that went under and took investors and employess down with them actually took alot of solid companies down too. As soon as the war with Iraq is either fought or forgoten about the markets and the under valued companies will start to grow again.

I really hope there is not one pilot that wants to see another furloghed, but I also hope people know who to blame.

 

[BigFlyr]

Take Iraq, secure the oil fields, give aid to the refugees, install a democratic government, watch oil prices fall and stock markets rise. If you think this is a war to prevent nukes from falling into the wrong hands... think again. What about N. Korea? No oil, that's what. Fuggedaboudit!

 

[KC-10 Driver]

This war (if it happens) may or may not help our economy.

One thing is certain, though. A war will cause loss of A LOT of life -- maybe not American, but a sad prospect none-the-less. Any war is a tragedy.

Even with victory and a potentially recovering economy, I will be saddened by this fact.

 

[FL000]

Not my words, but I share this opinion:

"A friend of mine from church who is a retired USN Admiral and
currently a well-connected Defense Industry executive.
I've also known him for 15 years and know him to be a
smart, levelheaded person, and church leader.

Here are his thoughts, but in my words.

Al Qaeda, Hamas and associated terrorists of the world are out to get the US
in a big way. They proved with the Sept 11 attack that they are capable of
a major strike. This just whetted their appetite for an escalation to the
next level.

There is a strong likelihood that the next level will not be a similar
attack that takes out 2,800 people, but leaves no long-lasting damage. They
will take their time, and likely go for a strike that will try to take out a
major US city. It could be a dirty bomb, with combination radiation and/or
biological agents, exploded near a major city, such as from a container ship
in the Hudson River, or San Francisco or Baltimore harbors. It would not
even have to be unloaded, and we don't have the technology to detect it in
advance. And they are likely to have several such strikes in the works, in
case one or two are discovered.

We are talking about a "first strike" by them that will, for all practical
purposes, seem like a last strike to us. It will do so much damage to our
economy, and several hundred thousand people, that the war is over as far as
the terrorists are concerned, and they won. We will only be left to wonder
who did it and who to bomb in retaliation.

So the notion that we are not a "first strike" country becomes a death
sentence for us, if we allow this to happen first, before we take action.

The terrorists will have a very difficult time pulling this off without the
help of a small industrial complex. The current providers of such a complex
to the terrorists are Syria, Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

>From among these, Iraq and North Korea have the least stable leadership, and
Iraq is the one with the most proven attempts to develop weapons of the type
that terrorists would like to have.

It is reasonable to think that our national leaders believe that we must
prove to all these countries that we are not going to sit by waiting on
Armageddon. We need to stop the terrorist supporters now, and we need to
show the other terrorist supporters what is in store for them if we feel we
need to hit them to protect our national interests.

Terrorists have no allegiance to a particular country, so they don't fear
retaliation by the US. The old cold-war standoff is no longer operative.
The terrorists probably consider a nuclear retaliation against one or more
of these supporting countries just the cost of war. They, and their
supporting countries, also know that the US will not just heave a few nukes
onto a Baghdad in retaliation, killing a couple of million innocent
civilians.

The terrorists are also not members of the UN. Our discussions there are
just a comedy to the terrorists.

So the US must act now in every way possible to stop the possibility of such
an attack against the US. Part of that action is to deny the terrorists the
support of these rogue countries. If a rogue country's leadership is so
unstable that they might sell/give the terrorists the weapons, then we must
stop it now. Iraq is such a country. A measured, non-nuclear attack on Iraq
may cause the others to cease their support of the terrorists in such a
dangerous way. It also may cause the least civilian casualties of all the
alternatives.

We must make it clear to the terror-supporting countries that there will be
a price to pay, and that a nuclear retaliation, which we are unlikely to
use, is not the only option open to us.

I think President Bush understands he cannot let a first strike happen, and
that nuclear retaliation is no longer a threat. We must go after the
terrorists, and their supporters and suppliers, now.

P.P.S. A history lesson from me:

Do you know why the US was in such a rush to develop the atomic bomb in
WWII? It's not because we simply wanted such a weapon. It's because concerned
physicists, including German refugee, Albert Einstein, warned Roosevelt in
writing that the Germans had the most capable physicist in the field of
nuclear physics, Nobel Prize winner, Werner Heisenberg, and he was known to
have a laboratory working on such a device. We knew what would happen if he
was the first to have such a weapon. Think about it.

I believe we are in a similar race today against the terrorists. The war
has begun, so the "don't go to war" crowd apparently has a misunderstanding
of what we are up against. We are at war today. Our country was similarly
divided just before Pearl Harbor and our entry into WWII. A modern-day
"Pearl Harbor" is likely a surprise that us unacceptable too us."

 

[mar]

Put partisan politics aside

Listen up everyone: For just a moment, let's put aside all of our partisan politics.

OK? Good.

FL000, you make a very good; a very logical arguement. I agree with almost everything you write.

Especially your statement that this country is indeed at war.

I repeat: This country is at war!! The threat is apparent and imminent in my eyes. I want something done.

BUT!!!

But! As an American taxpayer and as an American voter I absolutely INSIST that my government work within the democratic process.

We hold ourselves out to the world as the one last true bastion of democracy and then the congress, in an act of complete negligence, hands over the US Constitution and authorizes Bush to use whatever force he deems necessary.

Now. I brought up this point in another thread and was read the riot act by someone trying to explain the authority of Article II and the War Powers Act...

I understand all of that.

My point is: This government doesn't trust the democratic process enough to actually work within it.

ONLY Congress can declare war.

Was Vietnam a war? Yes. Was war ever declared? No. In my opinion was JFK, LBJ and RMN operating unconstitutionally? Yes.

Am I asking too much when I expect my president and our elected officials to follow the rules that they swore to obey?

What can be more patriotic than to absolutely insist that these people who work for you and I actually USE the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

The President, his administration and the US Congress are just American citizens, employed by you and I; payed by you and I; They swore to their god that they would follow the rules.

If Bush wants war then ask Congress. I'd be willing to bet, FL000, that the retired USN Adm friend of yours would even let George borrow your succint summary of his feelings.

I bet Congress would vote for war and the administration would be perceived as working democratically.

There can be no crisis so urgent as to brush aside the greatest system of government in the history of the world.

Let the system work. Trust it. Be the patriot that Franklin and Jefferson envisioned.

 

[LJDRVR]

Congress DID give President Bush the authority to attack Iraq in October with a joint resolution. While I agree that adherence to our constitution and the democratic principles that make our country great is a sound dogma, I would submit that we have done what you advocate. Iraq is not in compliance with UN demands to disarm, and the time to debate the politics of this impasse are rapidly coming to an end. As the leading democratic nation on the face of the planet, I say we are compelled to remove Sadam from power. With or without a coalition.

Warmest Regards,

 

[mar]

Compelled by WHAT or WHOM?

Congressional approval is not a declaration of war.

Suppose Ashcroft went to Bush and said, "Hey man, this prohibition against unlawful search and seizure thing is *really* making my job tough. Whaddya say we ditch it"?

Bush goes to Congress and says, "Friends, Romans, Countrymen: You know what? In the interest of national security I think we should be able to search and seize people at will. Whaddya think"?

Congress shrugs their collective shoulder, yawns and says, "Yeah man, whatever. You know what you're doing."

You see, that would be unconstitutional too even if it came from Congress. They should be sued for malpractice in such a case.

Anyway.

So we're compelled to go to war you say. Fine.

If the reasons are good enough then there will be a mandate from the people.

Let the system work.

By the way, Iraq is not the only country in the world to ignore international opinion. If that were good enough reason there would be millions of people calling for the overthrow of America.

Oh wait a minute. We could be in trouble.

 

[LJDRVR]

As I understand it, the warpowers act allows congress to authorize the executive branch to wage war. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Military action against Iraq has nothing to do with them "ignoring international opinion." It has everything to do with their continued violation of international law and the fact that they WILL provide terrorists with dangerous weapons that anonymous fanatics WILL use to kill Americans. Democracy does not mean we get to hold a special election for war. We elected our congressmen and our president under the auspices of the constitution. The legislative branch has authorized the commander-in-chief to attack Iraq. There will be no mandate from the people.

My question is this: what more are you waiting for? Forget about all those boobs who think Bush is out to "avenge Daddy." Do they really think our President is a vengful 8-year old? I truly believe that if the national command authority is this eager to overthrow saddam, then it really must be a race against time to keep him from destabilizing the region/planet.

Alas, way too much politics for this dumb pilot. Just my opinion dude, totally fallible. Here's the question I'm skeptical about: Why did Mssrss Powell and Schwartzkopf allow ALL those Iraqi armor and ALL those republican guards to slip through our northern lines and escape at the end of the gulf war?

Cheers!

 

[Singlecoil]

Here's the question I'm skeptical about: Why did Mssrss Powell and Schwartzkopf allow ALL those Iraqi armor and ALL those republican guards to slip through our northern lines and escape at the end of the gulf war?

Cheers!

We attacked their retreating armies daily and slaughtered them. Remember the "highway of death"? Some of the pilots were even feeling guilty about it because it was so easy. ( Vipers in the Storm by Keith Rosenkranz) Schwartzkopf wanted to keep pressing the battle all the way to Baghdad, but was ordered to cease operations by George Herbert Walker Bush, because the coalition would have immediatley broken down had we done that. It took very careful diplomacy to get arabs (Saudis, Jordanians)on our side to attack another arab state (Iraq). This was only possible because we were defending and repatriating another arab state (Kuwait).
The administration at the time made what was then the right decision not to press on toward Baghdad as the UN Resolutions that authorized the liberation of Kuwait did not authorize the overthrow of Saddam.

 

[mar]

Singlecoil: Interesting response

Interesting response from Singlecoil--much better than I would've managed.

As for me, What am I waiting for? I guess I'm waiting for a serious change in American foreign policy that gives us more credibility in the international community before we invade and subsequently occupy other sovereign nations.

Waiting, but not holding my breath.

LJDRVR I don't happen to think you're another dumb pilot. You actually use logic and facts to back up your assertions.

I can respect that more than the standard retort of: Hey mar, you just think that way cause the liberal media and the liberal universities have taught you to think like a wuss.

The truth is: I graduated ERAU (hardly Berkley).

And: I only read mainstream media in the bathroom--if you get my point...

Peace in 2003

 

[cocknbull]

My thoughts exactly xXpress1

 

[embdrvr]

I read recently that Iraqui defenses were being consolidated into a multi-ring structure around Baghdad. Saddam is probably smart enough to not engage us in the open desert. An urban conflict is "winnable" but is likely to take a lot longer than what some of the pundits are saying. To complicate things many Iraqui forces will be in civilian garb.

All the financial analysts seem to agree that protracted conflict will damage the economy further and possibly put us back into recession. Gas prices are already skyrocketing around the nation just on the speculation of war. Look at what happened last time around when we went to war in Kuwait. This time could be far worse. We have a weaker coalition and we'd be invading Iraqui home turf. We could see a lot of dead US servicemen and I think we can kiss a lot of our jobs goodbye. Look how weak this industry is now compared to last time. We'll likely see the rest of the legacy majors in bankruptcy and possibly 2 or 3 no longer in existence.

 

[cocknbull]

EMBDRVR

I agree with you on Saddam's strategy for defending Iraq. I think however that the price for leaving Saddam alone will be far greater. The fact is Saddam must fall before our economy will recover. The market and the consumer hate uncertainty. With Saddam in control of a nation as important as Iraq the future is uncertain. Diplomacy has failed for 11 years and it is time to take him out. No one wants to see our soilders in harms way, but by being a soilder you agree to put yourself in harms way for a greater good. Most major finacial consultants now believe the only way to save the airlines maybe to get Saddam out of power and out of mind. Oil prices are up 30 percent since resolution 1441 passed and they will not return to acceptable levels untill Saddam is delt with. The public needs to see progress on this matter before it will feel safe and open up its wallets. Remember 86 percent of Americans feel Saddam is tricking the UN and they believe he will develop weapons of mass destruction and used them to intimidate and strike fear into Americans. With him gone thats 86 percent of Americans who feel safer.

Jobs maybe lost in the short term, but I can assure you it won't be because of Iraq. The airlines may use the war as an excuse for more government help. But I think we all know why the airlines are in such a stink.

 

[embdrvr]

I'm not sure he's as much of a threat as many make him out to be. Many tyrannical despots have wmd's. Saddam wants to stay in power. I think he realizes tht if he lobs bio or chem weapons at his neighbors that he woud give us and NATO countries an incontrovertible reason to take him out. The big question is whether or not that theory is true.
Also if we can't locate any of his supposed weapons is it really a good idea to invade thus insuring that he'll use them if he does have them?

 

[embdrvr]

There is no doubt that we will be successful, and if we can do it quickly I expect better things from this industry and others.

Therein lies the rub. Can we do it quickly without losing a lot of our own and without unacceptable collateral damage?

 

[roughneck]

without unacceptable collateral damage

The unacceptable collateral damage will be on our turf if we don't snuff out the problem now. It is absolutely fact that Saddam is giving the UN inspectors the run-around and he is doing it because he has banned weapons. There is no realistic argument against these facts. Saddam hates us so bad that he would do anything to get these weapons into the hands of terrorists that could "deliver" them to us. (If he hasn't already).

I have heard enough of the complaining and argument that there will be more furloughs, lower stock market, etc. Big Deal. I will gladly give up my job, my 401K, my financial security to insure that my kids will have it. Don't you think it is a little selfish to not want to take care of future problems now so you can have a little bit of job security and a healty portfolio?

Sure, just pass the buck on to our kids and the future generations. We all have ancestors that fought and probably gave their lives so that we would not have to endure the problems of their times. I think we should be willing to do that for our youth. Forget about your furlough or 401K. We are fighting for our country and our freedom. We can always get other jobs.