Bush War - 24hourcampfire

Home

Watching Ted Copple tonight, from all indications we are really going to war. I went through WWII with no ammo. It was froze overnight and all factories started war production. 22LR was just a memory as every other ammo even shotgun shells. Wonder what it will be like this time? Everyone have a good supply without going over Clintons figure? I haven't bought a pound of powder in 30 years, may be time to stock up. I remember just a short time ago primers were a premium. Food for thought! -- no

As a young officer in Europe, I once had to do an ammo draw for my unit. I went into a warehouse that must have had several hundred thousand crates of ball 5.56 ammo. (If I rightly recall, each box holds 1660 rounds). I asked the 0-4 that was there if there were other facilities like this one. He laughed and said, "only about 2 dozen--here in country!" We are talking billions and billions of rounds! And that was just for Germany. Think what we had stashed away for all of Europe. Now think about what we have stashed away for the world. I also saw some of the tank reserves that were stockpiled in Germany. Amazing. A complete division of tanks, just waiting to replace the ones put out of action by the Soviet invasion in the Fulda gap. Gentlemen, I know less about guns than most people here, but I can tell you that this country is ready to go to war right now. Furthermore, we can sustain our efforts without resupply for months and months.
 
 I would wager that taking over Iraq wouldn't consume 3% of what we had stashed in Germany when I was there in 90-93. If there is a bullet shortage, it's because the great war of the end times is in full swing. Of course that's not to say there won't be a run on bullets by every gun owner in the country. That could cause a temporary shortage, but I doubt it will take the manufacturers long to resupply us--I don't think they'll be overwhelmed with military contracts.
 
 I'm not trying to be dramatic; I'm just confident that we're ready and well supplied.

It is usually those that have never seen or have selective memory of true wartime conditions that rattle the sabers the loudest. I don't disagree that somthing will have to be done sooner or later, it is just my position that we must do it after garnering at least some support for our actions.
 
 Acting as a loose cannon or "bully" will backfire big time IMHO and Saddam and his people will become Martyr's to the Muslim world with us perceived as the "Evil ones" by an even greater number than already do.
 
 Let's face it, we no longer live in the black and white easily defined "good" and "evil" world of the past. Now it is all shades of grey that waft back and forth like the fog on a lake with occasional fleeting flashes of Technicolor.
 
 I firmly believe that if us old farts that have seen the elephant and our leaders were the ones that had to face each other on the "killing fields" instead of sending the young, there would be a much more peaceful world out there.
 
 It is much easier to send your "Champion" to the fray than go yourself!
 
 I think this will have far ranging and detrimental effects on our economy well beyond ammo availability. I am truly worried about the full ramifications to us and the world if we go off half cocked and start WWIII without the the backing of our allies in the region and the rest of the world.

Golly, I was just talking about you and me having enough hunting ammo to last through a crisis, but I forgot a lot of you are young enough to go to war and have free ammo.
 
 Now as for the situation with Saddam, I feel he should be brought down before he becomes another Hitler with weapons strong enough to end the world,--- which they have already shown they are willing to do thinking they will go to heaven.
 
 I'm tired of helping every country in the world only to have them turn on us. We made Saudi with our oil companys, we rebuilt Japan, we gave away the Panama Canal, we feed half the world and are looked down on. I'm tired of little tin soldiers shaking their fist in our face. Get it over with before the pimple becomes a boil and costs us many times over in young men and women. We are becoming anemic from being good samaritans and wanting to impress the world how good and gentle we are.Kick some ass fast and get it over with, anyone smart off kick his ass also, FINISH THE JOB PERIOD!! JMHO -- no

No doubt about it, if we have to, it must be fast, decisive and no holding back. Any prolonged conflict will bring out the hand wringers and lessen our chances of a decisive out come. I think we shoud have finished him the first time, then this would be moot. We need to take care of our own before we worry about the rest of the world, that's a fact.
 
 BTW, I only have about 3 Lbs of the powder I use and maybe 5,000 assorted primers and bullets. Think I should get some more? I do have a few hundred loaded rounds and some factory stuff. 22LR will be no problem as I got a great deal on 5,000 rounds of Winchester Dynapoint and 1,000 of CCI mini-mag's. Got about 1,000 rounde of .22WMR as well. Think I can ride out a pretty long storm and still be able to shoot and pot meat.

Well saw what the President said today in Louisville. If you take his logic at face value, I as a lawful CCW holder have the right to draw and fire preemptively on some one I perceive as a potential threat, without proof they are.
 
 Whats your take on that? I think he is stretching way too far on this one.

I suspect that, while I might not have all the choices I want, as far as shooting/reloading goes I am good for the duration, indeed, am no doubt good for my duration, but that hasn't slowed me down yet. [Linked Image]

NO
 Back during WWII, there were ammo shortages in places other than the US also. When my Grandfather landed in North Africa, they were given three rounds of ammo and told to make do because it was all they had. When he hit the beach at Anzio, he had no rifle. They told him not worry, there would be plenty laying around on the beach. We are a lot more prepared today than we were back then.

At this time I have to oppose a war with Iraq. I haven't seen or heard any rationale. I believe beginning another offensive action with another muslum country could lead us to major conflicts with other muslum countries not directly involved in the conflict. We don't need a holy war declared against us by the entire faith. With the correct reasons and explainations provided, I could change my mind but, to date, I haven't heard 'em and I don't think the rest of the world has either.

Frankly, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. Who are we going to listen to? All the millions of people who readily became communists? How about all the European nations who readily let Germany do what it did. Not once but twice. The only time they cared was when their own country got invaded, then had to look to us to save them. Look at what they allowed to happen next door in the Balkans. What did they do to help? Call the US. Thats what.
 
 If you think the whole islamic faith is not against us, you are hiding your head in the sand. Name one friendly islamic country, where you would not mind taking your family to a visit.
 
 Why do people think the President of this country is going to give them all the information he has. Do you know what classified information is? Do you know how we get that information? Do you know how many people would die if all that information became public knowledge? Do you know how little information we would get after that?
 
 Oppose a war with Iraq? If I am told to go I will. Willingly. Thats not my decision to make. Thats why we have many leaders invloved who certainly have more info than I.
 
 I am also tired of hearing from all the weak kneed sissies out there who want to list all the reasons why the US is to blame. There is only one reason I see that all this is happening. What religion teaches hatred and murder? What kind of people teach their kids to kill indiscriminately? Rejoice when their kids blow themselves up. There is no reason with these people and the only peace they know is defeat.

The older I get the cloudier things become. I have to believe that there is more going on than we peons are privy to. I also think that if we are to maintain the moral high ground we have to be patient and perhaps be subjected to another attack before we pull off the gloves. In Iraq's case should they attack a country with a chem/bio or nuke then the stops are out. Additionally, the US is counting on several countries to swing with us. Some of these allies present potential future problems e.g. Saudi Arabia. There are over 1.5 Billion Moslems in the world and we can't fight them all for ever so we need some long range thinking here before we jump. With the national interactions being more global nothing can be solved with simplistic thinking. For example, China has a lot of our needed industrial base. Should China decide to cut it off, for whatever reason, the US will be scrambling to replace it. We are already involved with a war on terrorism and a basic military stratagy is don't allow yourself to be spread too thin i.e. fight on more fronts than you can handle.pak

If Bush One hadn't of listened to that idiot Scowcroft or however you spell it, and the whole host of idiots that call themselves the State Dept in Desert Storm we wouldn't have this dilemma now. Then, shamefully, he told the Kurds we would support them in a revolt and left them to die in the desert. Reminds me of Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. I think Bush Two is trying to fix his father's screw up, which is not a good reason to go to war.
 
 There may be good reasons, but I am not convinced yet, and I think that if the Europeans don't want to be onboard, then let it ride, if Saddam develops a nuke, he will almost certainly have to deliver it to Europe or Israel. If he even thinks about Israel, they will take him out, and it the rest of Baghdad has to go, well, too bad. And, if he blows up part of Europe, maybe they might be a little more warlike in the future. As much as I love Paris, if it has to happen, he can start with France, they need an attitude adjustment.
 
 Bio-chemical is another cup of tea and might be sufficient reason, if the evidence was strong enough. And, of course, we won't know that until after the fact, if ever.

PS: I hope I'm wrong, and I don't dislike him, but I grow stronger in my conviction that Bush will be a one termer. A lot can happen in the next couple of years but a lot will have to happen right to let him be re-elected. Of course, the Dems have to find a viable candidate, which they don't really have at this time IMO.

Hey Waders,
 
 We were in Germany at the same time.
 
 I was a Gunnery Sergeant, Detachment Commander of the Marine Security Guard Detachment at the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt. Aug 92 to Sept 93, then I went to Zagreb, Croatia to stand up a Det at the Embassy there. Kind of different for a Marine, not many Marines in Europe.
 
 I've done a lot of simulated fire missions on a Fulda Gap image on a TSFO (training set forward obsever) back in my earlier days.
 
 Good Shooting, MM

Our leaders have a very bad habit of quiting the fight soon as they hit a good winning blow. That would get your ass killed in South Dallas. My clan won't fight another half ass war or police action. Too many Americans have died for politicians whims! -- no

Well I don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. They can kiss my ass! The greasy bastards have declared war on us and we have a moral obligation to defend our people and our way of life.
 
 When would be a good time to go over there? After a mushroom cloud rises in Israel or NYC???

Well, unless you are prepared to nuke them, or bomb them into the stone ages, with the attendant huge numbers of civilian casualties, it is going to be extremely difficult to stage an invasion from 8000 miles away, or however far it is. So having some world opinion support is more than just a political plus, it is nigh onto a necessity to have militarily as well. While it may be intuitively correct, there is zero evidence at this point that Iraq and Saddam supported Al Queda, or we would have certainly had it presented to the American people by now. So, in fact, Iraq has not committed any act of war against the US, and, in fact, did not do so in Desert Storm. We just did the Arabs work for them to protect our oil suppliers.

Gentlemen
 
 I was one of the Korean GIs.
 
 My whole age group of GIs was ready to go to war when Powers was shot down. He was an American doing what he was told by his government and we in our ignorance were ready to show that we were behind the least of us. At the time I was stationed in Germany.
 
 When Nam was started I was a civilian. Needless to say, the antis turned my stomach. I worked at the Texas Highway Department in Austin. We had many young people who were parttime students that were of a different frame of mind to me. They made me feel ashamed to be of the same nationality. Some even went North to escape the draft.
 
 I have a son that was too young for Nam but would have been cannon fodder age in the 70s. I told him that if he was drafted and did not go, not to bother coming home.
 
 After I learned later the political BS about Nam, I apologized to him. After Slick Willy was elected by the American people when we knew what trash he was I was apalled at American people. The second time made me ashamed.
 
 Now, I wonder if we are capable as a nation ( who allows others to $hit on our beliefs and citizens and do nothing, with politicians who think that getting elected again is the only reason to be in Congress, with political parties that are the only game in town and do not believe in either a right or wrong).
 
 My mother always hated my statement that a limited war on our own soil was the only salvation of our nation. September 11 proved me wrong. I am not sure we are salvagable.
 
 As you see I feel strongly about American and her heritage. At my age I guess I will only be able to shoot the bastards who want my guns and will deny me the right to defend my little territory.

I don't take blame for the attacks on us, it was not Americas fault. I am not weak kneed either, but we have to live and coexist on this planet just like you have to live and coexist with your neighbors.
 
 The bully in the school yard gets his nose bloodied eventually as well, it is not as simple as some folks think.
 
 After WWI the world put down on Germany pretty damn hard and look what it bred, A. Hitler, who damn near took over all of Europe and it took one hell of a long and costly war, both in lives and money to dispose of him.

eddie, for the most part we have become a nation of sheep that follow any smooth talking ring in ear big mouth. Our young know nothing but dyed hair, body piercing, tattoos, shopping malls, and electronic games. Two months from civilian to front line is not enough. -- no

WWI may have bred Hitler, but it was the whole of Europe that nursed and raised him.He was a threat well before '39, but nobody wanted to do anything about him. The feeling was maybe he won't invade us, so hes probably not all that bad. It cost a lot more lives than it should have. There are people today who would rather wait until war is at their doorstep, than to admit it is needed. Some people we can not coexist with. No amount of touchy feely sympathy for them will make them like us. Peace will only come through defeat. Theirs or ours.

Just make sure you are right before you pull the trigger, you can't bring the bullet back once it is fired. Don't know if you have been in service or seen the real face of war, I have and it ain't pretty.

Sonnie, and others who want to run down our young people every time something like this comes up- I'm calling BS and I'm not buying your arguments.
 Sure, we have kids who had ears pierced, colored hair, and other things we consider strange now. It is obviously way too easy for you to forget the things we did that drove our parents crazy.
 
 Keep in mind that this world we live in is a much more complicated place than when we were "warriors' age". When we were young enough to worry about wars, it was pretty black and white. These days, unless we have access to all the mountains of information available to our leaders that wasn't available then, we just can't make any calls with any certainty of being right or wrong.
 The fact is that I am embarrassed to see our young folks being run down by you and others- as if it is their fault that all this is happening. The visible few that stick in our craw at times are a minor inconvenience and for the most part, this generation of kids is just as tough, loyal, and willing to give their all for our country as any other generation before.
 
 I suppose you think that everyone in the 40's, 50's, and 60's weren't ready to be led around by their ties, like the sheep you refer to? What was the "Red Scare", Rock and Roll are evil, and all the other mob mentality rules of unbending minds? Obviously, some of those uptight minds have never learned to accept the world as it has changed. It isn't better or worse, IMHO, it just is the world as it is and we need to learn to live in it somehow. Today we fight, tomorrow we negotiate- the trick is knowing which time is which.- And that really hasn't changed much in our lifetimes and likely won't.- Sheister

Sonnie,
 
 The "great generation" that defeated Hitler were a bunch of farm hicks. The rock and roll "baby boomer" generation kicked the snot out the the NVA when they were allowed too. The girly man "generation Xer's" whipped Saddam. The body pierced, baggy pants "millenialist generation" has spanked the Al Queda (sp?) at every turn.
 
 I think we Americans are still made of strong stuff. The external crap we see from kids today is just "decoration" and speaks to taste rather than substance. While my daughters won't be dating boys with ear rings, I think American kids today still have the "rigth stuff"--just as dad, grandpa, and great grandpa did.
 
 Blaine

Shiester, I saw two huge buildings in the heart of the largest city of this country, full of people, destroyed. I have seen the dead from biological weapons, controled by Saddam, his own people for that matter. The media shows patrol aircraft being fired upon in the no fly zone by Saddam. Inspectors thrown out of the country by Saddam. --- I know my opinion!!
 As for our young folks, we all believe in them, we must, but have you watched the concerts? I park cars on my lots next to Fair Park,(Cotton Bowl), in Dallas and see the thousands of young folks that attend each one. The shopping malls are scarey at times and sections of town are not safe, from drugs. This is true in most of the large metroplex areas, up and down both coasts. Look at all the concerts on TV, tell me what you see. Yes, the rural areas of America are not as bad, BUT, we darn sure didn't look, act, dress,(or undress), talk, the way they do now. Why are teachers afraid of their students? Why do we have problems in the schools? Why are there so many runaways now. You tell me the young are better now than in the 50 or 60s. We had no drug problems, few of the young were in therepy, the courts were not covered up with kids. You didn't see kids being prosicuted as adults for serious,(murder), like today. I don't remember any teen prostitutes either and I had the money. I trained basics,(17-18 year olds), for four years in the 50s, know what they were like back then. For the MAJORITY, to say they are better now than then, I disagree. There is no choice, they are our future, and coming voters, who will elect the leaders. Most will grow out of the fad stage when they get responsibility but who is teaching responsibility these days?? How many school kids have a job today?? Think what you want, I don't sugar coat anything. My son and daughter still say "yes sir", "no sir", "yes mam", "no mam", to all adults. Marie was a bank officer, now mother, Kevin works in county government. How long has it been since a young person called you Sir. How long has it been since a young person was glad to get a job from you? Tell me some good, I need it! Not about one or two but many. -- no

Blaine, You know I agree with you! -- no

T LEE
 Enlisted back in '88. Took a few years off to live in Alaska. But, I have a few good years left, so I'm back in. Yes, I've seen combat and know what it's about. I know many have seen a lot worse. Do I want war-HELL NO. If it needs to be done though, I'm
 all for doing it now. Not later, like in WWII when we waited for millions to die before acting. I'm starting to wonder about that generations convictions.
 
 I have children to protect. I would rather get this over now than have them do it later. History shows waiting only costs more lives, not fewer.

One thing is for certain, we don't even know a small percentage of what the intel people know about the goings on in Iraq! We know exactly what we have been spoon fed by this administration and its leaders. OpSec protocols are still being used and I can assure you any media puke that may actually know anything is cached away somewhere or held to secrecy until the story breaks...Remember loose lips sink ships!
 
 Don't expect to turn on CNN and see where the 82nd is enroute to Baghdad [Linked Image]

!!
 
 Saddam's day will come!
 
 Mike

TLEE,
 I read your posts on this subject and say I must agree with you. This is my opinion on the matter and everyone can take it for that.
 
 As Americans we tend to paint with a broad brush. Bush Sr. demonized Saddam and in doing so painted himself into a corner with much of the Republican Party. This is what happens when you make a person evil, not quasi-evil, not the Diet Coke of Evil, pure evil. We- I say we because I was there- had "permission" (from the UN and the huge number of allies we amassed- 26 nations supported us logistically or provided military assistance- in 1991) to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, nothing else. Many members of the UN wanted us to limit our maneuver and weapons effects to Kuwait proper, imagine being outflanked by the Iraqis because we wanted to avoid getting anyone angry. I myself am glad we ignored that. The removal of Saddam was not a stated nor an implied mission in 1991. Sure it would have been nice, but it was not necessary for a victory. Now we have another Republican President (who I like and voted for mind you) and the mess has to be cleaned up, Saddam must be removed to bring back the faithful.
 
 Does Saddam have WMD, yes. Has he used them before, yes. During the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds (BTW, Kurds aren't considered Iraqi by the Iraqis, all the nations in the region with Kurds persecute them, we've withheld weapons and technical support from the Turks for their treatment of the Kurds). Has he given them to terrorists, not that we can prove- at least not publicly. Will he give them to terrorists, doubtful. Is he a threat to the region, yes. Does he need to be removed, eventually.
 
 Let's look at what we can do.
 We sent 3 commercial cargo ships loaded with armor (unspecified) to Kuwait. We have a Maritime Prepositioned Ship Squadron at Diego Garcia (enough ammo, food, water, Hummers, tanks, etc. for a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) for 30 days). Unfortunately the Army has not seen fit to follow this lead of forward basing supplies. Surface shipping is required to get our armor to the fight, we can airlift tanks, but it takes longer to get a heavy brigade's tanks there by air than by sea.
 
 We have good relations with Turkey, but no bases in the southern part. Saudi Arabia has refused to renew our contracts for air and naval facilities. The UAE and Bahrain have refused to open any new contracts with us. We are fresh out of friends within range.
 
 2/3 of our military airlift capability is in the Air Reserve and Air Guard and they don't do drill weekends because they are always being called upon to support active duty needs. Our ability to airlift troops and light expendables is already at the breaking point. If I remember correctly we have enough amphibious shipping to get 2 MEFs on the water at once if every ship is working, but that won't give us more armor than one Army heavy brigade, so our initial invasion would have to be light and our armor would have to sit offshore in civilian vessels until a port is taken. The point of launching an invasion from 8000 miles away begins to look like a reality, imagine the logistical nightmare.
 
 Lastly there were 528,000 Americans who served "In Theater" during the Gulf War with at least 10 other nations providing ground forces or support troops on the ground, how can we go this alone (or with just the Brits) with 250,000? As far as the kids go, I guarantee today's warriors are better trained, better led, smarter and better fighters than we were in 1991.
 
 This got long fast and if you actually took the time to read it I thank you.
 
 Wish me luck if I end up there again,
 Bob

Amen, Sheister, amen!
 
 This is the best damn country in the world and the kids today are better than they've ever been...the American spirit is strong and alive! It's all perspective.

Kodiakisland,
 
 I think we are on the same page, just different paragraphs. We will have to do somthing sooner or later, but it must be done right the first time. I don't want to see our young troops wasted as we were in RSVN.
 
 Gunny_Bob,
 
 Excellant post. I am glad you put it in perspective the way you did. My 31 year old nephew is an Army Ranger and was in the Balken's, from what I have seen of our troops on visit's with him and his wife at a couple of bases, we have nothing to worry about in the quality department. It is the political leaders that worry me. The troops will do their part if given the proper support, no doubt in my mind.
 
 All,
 
 This from the BBC. Things may be changing, Blair is usually not this militant, a little waffling but definatly tougher than the norm. Now a few more onboard and we stand a good chance. We NEED bases in the area, Diego Garcia ain't enough, we need bases on the continent itself. We just have to make sure our troops have all the support they possibly can, before "Loosing the Dogs of War"
 
 
 Britain will pay 'blood price' - Blair
 
 
 US says no decision has been made on attacking Iraq
 
 Britain must be prepared to pay a "blood price" to secure its special relationship with the
 US, Prime Minister Tony Blair has told the BBC ahead of talks on Iraq with President
 Bush.
 But Britain was not America's puppet, the prime minister said in an interview with the
 BBC Two programme Hotline to the President, to be screened on Sunday.
 
 
 
 They (the US) need to know, `Are you prepared to commit, are you prepared to be there
 when the shooting starts?'
 
 Tony Blair
 UK Prime Minister
 Mr Blair - who has promised to publish a dossier of evidence against Iraq in the coming
 weeks - said the threat of chemical and biological weapons in the hands of "highly
 unstable states" could not be ignored.
 
 He told the Hotline programme: "In the end, Britain is a sovereign nation. Britain decides
 its own policy and although I back America I would never back America if I thought they
 were doing something wrong.
 
 "If I thought that by committing military action in a way that was wrong, I would not
 support it. But I have never found that and I don't expect to find it in the future."
 
 
 Blair denies he is a US puppet
 
 Mr Blair will meet President Bush on Saturday at Camp David, in a meeting that is likely
 to discuss who could succeed Saddam, but which advisers have said is not "a council of
 war".
 
 Meanwhile, President Bush is continuing a diplomatic offensive to win support for an
 attack on Iraq, seeking to persuade key members of the UN Security Council to back his
 campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.
 
 The president is expected to telephone on Friday the leaders of France, Russia and China,
 who are all sceptical about the need for military action.
 
 Mr Blair will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in early October, and
 although the visit is said to be long-planned, Mr Putin is regarded as a vital player in
 decisions about how to confront Iraq.
 
 'When shooting starts'
 
 Hotline to the President presenter Michael Cockerell asked Mr Blair whether one of the
 elements of the UK-US special relationship was whether "Britain is prepared to send
 troops to commit themselves, to pay the blood price".
 
 
 Iraqis face an uncertain future
 
 Mr Blair replied: "Yes. What is important though is that at moments of crisis they (the
 USA) don't need to know simply that you are giving general expressions of support and
 sympathy.
 
 "That is easy, frankly. They need to know, `Are you prepared to commit, are you
 prepared to be there when the shooting starts?'"
 
 The prime minister added: "We are not at the stage of decision on Iraq, and there are all
 sorts of different ways in which we might decide to deal with this Iraqi problem in the
 end.
 
 "But what you cannot do is to say that this issue of weapons of mass destruction,
 proliferation of chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear capability in the
 hands of highly unstable states ... that these are issues that don't need to be dealt with."

Gunny_Bob,
 
 My best wishes and prayers will go to all that must go in "Harms way". I'll have family there as well, my nephew is an Army Ranger and demolitions specialist on his third enlistment, you know he will be right there!
 
 All I ask is that the troops have the best possible support, logistical as well as morally so they can do the job right the first time without another quagmire like Vietnam. That is truly my only concern.

Gentlemen
 
 I firmly believe that we could field a military to be proud.
 
 We only hear about the bad kids. Therefore that few percent has always and will always be around.
 
 When it is all said the only worry that I have is the politicians and the wasters of our youth. If we commit one GI he should be have the total backing of our government.
 
 Therefore, If we commit one GI we need to do so only after we declare war and continue until we receive unconditional surrender.
 
 These police actions are by and large none of our business. Most of these peoples have hated and warred among themselves for centuries. We are stupid to think we can change them.
 
 My humble opinion for what it is worth.

I believe that puts you and I on the same page, and paragraph.
 
 I am not worried about the quality of or troops, I only worry about them being wasted to no end like we were in Korea and S. E. Asia many moons ago.

T. Lee, that is exactly what I am afraid of. Waisting lives without any clear distinctive threat. And, in addition, stirring up the several billion other Muslums in the world who would just love to begin a hate campaign against the evil U.S. I am not going to simply agree with our overnment, this time, that they know best. I did that in Viet Nam and I won't do it again. I have seen and heard too much about our government, that frankly, I don't trust 'em. I need reasons and rationale to support our President. Until I get it, I can't help think that there may be alterior Political motives. I will support our troops whever they are sent, however. Going to war is not their decision and they deserve only the best, should it happen.

Gunny_Bob nailed it better than I could. He put the fine point on it I was trying to. We don't need economic prompted wars, only in National defense with well defined threats to our National security, not what if's and maybe he will's.

I feel very strongly that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations (Islamic or not) ARE threats to our people and our national security. The objective seems to have been to shut down our banking system, imagine the damage caused if the world's largest banks simply stopped trading.
 
 We need to direct our efforts at tracking down and eliminating the persons responsible for last years atrocity, not cleaning up the leftovers of a previous administration. Al-Qaeda leaders and control cells are believed to be in many nations, if we would maintain our focus we can accomplish this with very little loss of life and most any nation will be glad to help. I would like to get rid of Saddam too, but there really is very little evidence (made public) that he helped or is helping Al-Qaeda.
 
 Logistically any operation's tail ends in the US. But you need bases in the theater for those supplies, you can't have the supplies being issued immediately upon arrival in a protracted war. The critical end of the logistical tail, the end most easily severed, needs to be as close to us as possible, not out in the Suez Canal or the Straights of Hormuz.
 
 I feel the American public is the weak link today. I doubt that we could afford (in the realm of public opinion) to wage a 3- 4 year war overseas today. Even if we had to wage this war in Afghanistan against those we KNOW are responsible for over 3000 American deaths, I doubt we could maintain that level of resolve. It seems to me that many have forgotten that life is not a TV show and if it was it would resemble All In The Family a great deal more than The Cosby Show. Things don't always work themselves out quickly, and sometimes not for our benefit.
 
 Just more ramblings,
 Bob

I like your ramblings, they are very astute, and just happen to mirror mine. You know what they say about great minds. LOL [Linked Image]

We need logic here, not emotion. The minute you let your emotions take over in a fight you wiil lose, cool heads will prevail and planning and preparation go a long way towards final victory.
 
 As too the American public, they are mostly interested in cake and circus' not the reality of war.

As to Sadam I honestly don't know. I do know that he has chemical weapons and has used them. He has biological weapons but it is unknown if he has used them. I sure as heck don't want to wait until he has nuclear weapons to find out if he will use them.
 
 As to the kids today every generation thinks that the one coming behind it has gone to hell in a hand basket. You can find old Greek writings from the BC time that express that. The kids today are no different from the WW1 vets saying anybody that would dance the Charleston was bound for perdition yet that generation did pretty well in WWII. Or saying anybody that listened to rock and roll/heavy metal was worthless tripe but they did good in VietNam when they were allowed to fight on their own terms. Same thing today, kids have a different outlook and a different value set and most adults don't think it is as good as theirs. That is natural even if wrong. Push comes to shove I believe the younger generation will do ok just like they have always done.
 
 And that's all I have to say about that -----Forrest Gump
 
 [Linked Image]

BCR

BCR. I am impressed with today's young in the service. I have seen them on visits to my nephew on Post in two differnts locations, they are sharp and professional. They can do what is necessary if they have the proper support.
 
 Again, I just don't want them wasted like we were in Vietnam.

T Lee
 
 I have grown to respect your opinions on most any subject. That you and I believe alike on this question is special.
 
 How can we expect more from our government when maybe 15 % elect them and those that do are sucking hind tit and want more.
 
 As long as we expect more and more we are easily bought. Once bought most remain so.
 
 One thought bothers me. If I refuse to surrender my weapons and fight for them or the right to own them, the ones I will be fighting really will be some officer just doing his best on a poor job. Hell isn't it.
 
 On the trip to Wyoming I will be in Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, and maybe others. Who has reciprocal carry laws. What is necessary under a reciprocal carry?

Eddie,
 The question is covered in your instruction to get concealed carry. If you don't have CC now you won't have time to get it if you are going this year. -- no

eddieleon, Go to www.packing.org for the most recent info on reciprosity.
 
 Thanks for the compliment, many here feel as we do, that;s the nice part of this board.

I'm tired of Saddam and Iraq in general. Let loose the dogs of war!

I am tired of some of our politicians. Lets "Loose the Dogs of War" on them.
 
 Saddan is not a "Clear and Present Danger" to us at this time, this is more about "Wag the Dog" IMHO. The terrs are another matter, we need to finish with Afganistan and continue to hunt them world wide.

Bearstalker,
 Unfortunately it is exactly that train of thought on somebody else's part that got over 3000 people killed last year. The difference is they don't have the conventional military might to do things through normal methods, instead they chose terror. Either way they chose to "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." I'm not saying 9/11 was our fault, far from it. No nation gives as much to the world without asking for anything back as we do. No nation writes off as much debt in a year as we do. And no nation's people volunteer or donate as much to the unfortunate of the world as we do.
 
 Believe me, I am tired of Saddam also. He has done everything he can to flaunt the restrictions placed upon him in 1991. In doing so he has increased his own level of security and power while denying shipments of food and medicine to the general population of Iraq. But we have a moral responsibility to our men and women who will be placed in harm's way and their families. We must ensure this is being done for all the right reasons. We must provide for their security in the region by at least ensuring the neutrality of the rest of the area. We must provide for their capabilities and well-being by ensuring adequate supplies arrive and can be stockpiled in the region. And we must ensure they have the political and popular support of our nation.
 
 We went to war in 1990 with the memories of Viet Nam still lingering like a bad hangover. I live in a very liberal area and support for the war was low, the troops were supported, but not the war. In the end we exorcised the ghosts of the previous generation and were welcomed home as heros, the war was a "good" thing, a Martha Stewart kind of good thing. Between then and now our military has been deployed on more real world missions than the time period from Korea to the Gulf, and most of them have been both questionable in purpose and questionable in mission. The previous administration has reminded us that we may be the best in the world, but a rag-tag bunch of disorganized locals can set us on the defensive pretty fast.
 
 I would hope this administration has learned the lessons of his predecessor, not his father. First is focus, second is overwhelming power and third is end-state. If we go without any one of those we will not be doing justice to those who will die.
 
 Good Luck and have a great hunting season,
 Bob

Gunny_Bob,
 
 Well said sir, I love the smell of common sense in the morning, it smells like,...............
 fresh air! [Linked Image]

Good post sir, and good hunting to all as well. Post pic's, please.

T LEE,
 
 Are you saying we should wait until Saddam has the ability to kill another 3000+ Americans by the use of nucluer power? Why sit and wait to find out? I'd rather not take the risk, and those who live in the east coast shouldn't either! I'm tired of Saddam and his evil ways. I'd shoot him myself if the chance arose. He's been playing games for 10+ years now. Lock & Load time because we're moving in!

You delude yourself sir, Just to put it in perspective. We can not attack and invade Sovereign Nations at will, any more than you can do a Dynamic Entry on your neighbors house.
 
 As much as I might want to, just cause I don't like you or your opinions does not give me the right to break into your home and kick your a$$, even if I have the might to do it.

Bearstalker,
 In addition to the Sovieregn Nation issue there is a huge amount of diplomatic and economic effort we have not exercised during the past 11 years.
 
 The UN, under our request, created an embargo, but obeying and enforcing it are another issue. With much less effort than a war we could create and enforce a no BS blockade of Iraq. This would allow us to take the moral high ground, placate European and regional nations and force Saddam to make a decision; bow to the UN/US pressure to play nice or become the aggressor.
 
 This could negatively effect Abdullah Q. Public in Iraq so again the UN can take the moral high ground and introduce aid workers with armed escorts (the Pakistanis and Canadians seem to love these kinds of missions). Any attack upon the aid shipments would give us more strength and weaken Saddam.
 
 During this time we should, of course, continue prerarations for war. Can we afford to forward base VII Corps in Kuwait, the XVIII Airborne Corps in Turkey and a MEB or MEF in the Indian Ocean, not for long, but the amount of pressure this would exert should make Saddam backpedal. In addition we would be more likely to get allied nations to rotate their units through such a show of force.
 
 I agree that Saddam, left to his own devices, will eventually need to be dealt with, and if nobody is willing to take the hard line now it will only get worse as time goes on. But, I do not agree that war is the answer until we have exerted every ounce of diplomatic and economic pressure available to us. We should apply this pressure WHILE we prepare for war as we may win without firing a shot, the best form of victory.
 
 Appeasement was not the answer in the 1930's and it wouldn't be today, but war in 1937 would have been disastrous for Europe. Even Joe Stalin knew Russia didn't posses the might to check Germany in 1939 so he signed a Non-Aggression Pact.
 
 I think you and I see things much the same, I only want to see if we can get Saddam to back down. He is a very intelligent man and excells at brinksmanship, he also understands just what we are capable of doing to him once we put our minds to it. Apply the right pressure and we will get what we want.
 
 Good Luck again,
 Bob

Again, Bravo sir. I belive you made a direct hit once again. I feel this is the right way to go about it. I am not a weak kneed liberal, but age has taught me reason and restraint. I also belive it would cost much less in terms of men and material in the long run and still give the requisite results.
 
 A bloodlees war is the best kind of war.

I'm all for a war to protect the rights of Americans. That said, the biggest enemy we have is our own government. The U.N. is right up there too.
 
 Saddam is no more a threat now than he was in '91. The U.N. wouldn't let us do it then, and the only support we have for doing it now is Great Britain. Taking out Iraq makes Israel the big dog over there. Those A-rabs sure don't want that.
 
 Now granted, there is an awful lot I don't know about this situation. Yes, the whole region is a powder keg, and Saddam is a lit match. But why is it the U.S. that has got to clean up everybody elses mess?
 
 What ever happens here, if and when we make a move, this time it's all or nothing. No stopping halfway to Bahgdad, and no press giving away plans. To hell with photo-ops and niceties. Come down hard and come down fast. Maybe while we're over there, we should just flatten some other countries too. The only way to fight a war is "balls to the wall".
 7mm

The sins of the father have been visited upon the son. George Sr. had the opportunity to take out Saddam when the time was right. Gen. Schwartzkoff advised him to go all the way to Baghdad, but the President said no. The good general knew his history and preferred not to take on the most powerful man in the world as did Gen. MacArthur. Choosing to be a hero over getting fired, the general took the prudent course of action and backed off.
 
 After 9/11, George Jr. had the perfect opportunity to take out Saddam, and chose not to do it when the time was right. He chose not to atone for the sin of the father when he had the perfect opportunity. This whole matter is much bigger than Osama. We could have taken out the Taliban, and roamed the Afghan hills at a later point.
 
 Now the timing is all wrong to go after Iraq. If we wait for Saddam to do another stupid thing (and he will) we can pull it off and look good in the process. A contrived war now could lead to a Middle East quagmire, or worse, World War III.
 
 If Iraq doesn't do anything considered aggressive, the world remains with an uneasy peace. We have lived in this situation for many years. There are much worse things than an uneasy peace.
 
 If any of us are put in a position where we have nothing to lose by taking drastic action because we're backed into a corner, we're probably going to take that drastic action. If either Iraq or Israel are put in that position, all hell is going to break loose. TIMING IS EVERYTHING. Let's wait for the right time to strike, and pray that that right time never comes.

AMEN BROTHER!

Piss on this chicken livered wait. wait. BS. The table has been set, the forcast is clear to any thinking man. What will you say when NY, SF, WA, are hit with nuclear power or our water supplys for major cities are poisoned, major electrical systems destroyed. They have shown what they are capable of and intend to do. You sound like a bunch of kids, you hit me first. Well partners, in case you don't know it, fights and wars are won with the first blow. If they are not won many lives are lost. I'm a kick ass, get it done on my terns, don't have to ask the neighbors if it's all right to be a fair haired boy. War is war, never pretty or fun for anyone, no holds bared, kick , scratch, bite, whatever it takes, one winner. People die and hurt everywhere in war soldier and civilian, the trick is how few have to pay. We lost three thousand mothers and daddys to only nineteen fanatics. How many will we loose next time. A dirty bomb in NY and SF how many millions die? Everyone in government and leadership says it is coming again, will your love ones be next?
 Yes, I've had my nightcap,JMHO -- no

need one,
 
 Well said! Those who want to wait or hide behind the curtain don't want to realize what's happening in this world, even if it ain't pretty.

Guys,
 
 The following are my opinions, not necessarily that of the USAF, DoD, or US Government. I am also only relaying info I have obtained from non-classified sources.
 
 During the summer of 2000, I was stunned to learn we were still attacking Iraq. A press release available to all would come after each attack, but it just wasn't news then. We were up to something like 470 Iraqi incursions of the no-fly zone. At that time, we had been involved in this little war for 9 years. Sanctions were imposed in varying levels, inspectors were allowed in then denied, etc.
 
 Reagrdless of what happened, Saddam would use the events for his own political gain. The Iraqi people continued to suffer. I gurantee Saddam's quality of life wasn't impacted by the embargoes or attacks. Like the spineless dictator he is, he denied food, supplies, and medicine to his own people while keeping it for himself. He was able to generate much political capital out of this, twisting things so the blame for the difficult conditions the Iraqis were facing on the United States of America.
 
 No doubt he's continued to build his chem and biological warfare capability while desperately seeking nuclear weapons. It isn't hard to imagine him proactively supporting terrorism against the US--it fits his "character" and is very practical for him as well.
 
 There is a saying: "if always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." It's time to do something different in Iraq. We don't have many good options at this point. However, an escalation of the operations in Iraq may well be our best choice. Don't forget, the war in the gulf never ended. It is still being conducted today. I think now is the time to finish it.
 
 Blaine

My .02 worth:
 
 I wasn't born nor raised in the US, but I got here as quickly as I could. I cherish the freedoms and liberty that I now have. They are not for sale and not to be bargained away by appearing to be weak and ineffective. I am not ashamed to say that I wept when the 9/11 attack occured and my heart swelled with pride when I saw DUBYA on the smoking ruins of the WTC and the response from 99.9% of Americans. I for one will stand up and be counted if the time comes. Shortly after the attack, a Canadian newspaper printed a story that basically outlined what/why/where/when the US assisted other nations in times of need-I can guarantee you that we'll never get the same treatment from anyone else short of Britain. In my humble opinion it's because we have, they don't and never will. Know why? The Bill of Rights that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died defending and am certain will continue. This grand country and those that believe in it will prevail. Of this I am sure. Godspeed to those that defend our nation and "wo' be unto those that threaten its survival".
 
 "Let's Roll".

Well I hate to see War come down the road, but it looks like it is going to happen sometime soon.
 
 My only take on the whole issue is the politicians should leave things up to the Generals in charge and give them a free hand to settle the BS that has been going on since the last confrontation. This whole war idea would have been over with when Gen. Swarts......took his men to the gates of Sadam's palace. If our politicians had not have given in to the other Arab contries request behind closed doors. Thank you Billy Boy Clinton!
 
 Sadam is an Arab and they do stick together whatever may come about, even though he might be the bad boy on the block the other Arabs seem to tolerate him. I don't feel that the Arab nations will side with the US and Great Britton on this war issue. We may end up fighting more Arabs than we thought we would.
 
 I have seen with my own eyes the effects of biological weapons at work. I have also seen the effects of Nuke Warfare in it's beginning stages on Japan. I don't want to have my kids having to wonder if this fanatic Sadam is going to try us with his Nukes..........WE ALL LOSE!
 I say, Saddle Up Let's Rock & Roll.......The best defense is always a good offense. Why wait? Those who hesitate are lost..............................It's a true fact of life.
 Looks like the real "Yank's are coming soon Sadam" Best you get the hell out of Dodge City buckaroo.
 
 I have plenty of powder stored up and many bullets too.
 It won't keep me from hunting the least little bit.

Deterrence and forward basing of combat units and supplies worked for over 40 years against a threat much greater than Iraq ever will be, and in the end we won. We can try this again, with greater ease and possibility of success and it gives us the ability to move on Iraq much faster than from where we are today.
 
 Many of you had your "ass in the grass" at one time or another and I can respect that. But unless you're going to be humping 3 60mm mortar rounds, a can of 7.62, your 50lb POS MOLLE pack and your personal weapon in ankle deep sand alongside me when we go your opinion is second to mine in my mind. I can respect that we don't want to lose another innocent life to terrorist scum, but it seems rather Clintonesque to want the military to solve problems more easily handled by other means.
 
 When my unit is activated I will go. Not because I want to, but because it is the right thing to do. I will do as I have been trained, lead my Marines in combat and coordinate air and indirect fires for the company. But if we blow our load prematurely, if we create more hatred than we resolve and turn the entire middle east fully against us I will be the first to say "I told you so" (probably as I call in another Final Protective Fire).
 
 Good Luck all,
 Bob

Gunny_Bob and I are in agreement on this in close order drill. All the saber
 rattlers and hard chargers need to step back and look at the BIG picture. We
 can swat Saddam like a fly and devastate most of Iraq from off shore. But do
 you want to end up the outcast rogue nation on the planet in his place?
 
 Sure we are as powerful a nation the planet has ever seen, so was Rome in it's
 time. We can not win the economic war with the rest of the world like we
 once could, we have "out sourced" too much of our production power to
 other nations.
 
 If Y'all all will settle for being a second rate economic power and a first rate
 bully, well then saddle up and head out ahead of the troops that will have to
 do the cleanup.
 
 Saddam is just like Fidel Castro, a dinosaur of a bygone age, he is a paper
 tiger and our government is using him as an excuse to wage an economic
 based war and lead the public down the primrose path of nationalism to do it.
 If we had been attacked by a nation state I would be the first to jump on the
 bandwagon to take names and kick ass, we weren't. We were hit by terrorists
 that hoped we would react by lashing out at the world and further cripple our
 credibility as a world leader. We do too much good and need to be
 discredited in the world view. They need to make us the bad guys to the
 world and if this keeps up they succeed and we lose, not militarily, morally.
 We become the bad guys and the Muslim world are the poor down trodden
 victim of "American Imperialism"
 
 My personal opinion is that if we do this, we will enter a new era of terrorism
 like the Izzies face on a daily basis right here at home. In the name of
 "national defense" we will lose most of our rights and freedoms and end up
 living a nation at siege right here at a neighborhood near you. Saddle stock
 will be at a premium and cars a luxury remembered.
 
 Do you really want your national budget dedicated to a massive military
 effort that will bankrupt us like it did the Soviet? I don't. I say instead of
 flogging Saddam, we hunt down and deal with the individual terror
 organizations. Much more cost effective IMHO.
 
 I am not gonna flog this dead horse any more, it is dead and that is it. GW
 will do what he wants to and we will pick up the tab, at least we aren't at the
 mercy of Al Bore or Klinton, it could be worse.

We never signed a peace treaty with Iraq, it was
 a cease fire.
 
 The Arab and UN nations would "hate" to see the
 USA end up taking down Iraq and putting in a
 Pro-Western Govt that would send it's oil to us.
 We would not be as relient on Saudi and Opec Oil and places us that much more a"head" of the rest of the UN
 nations, leaving them as the tail. The UN does not
 want us being THE power nation as we are. In geopolitics it also puts us in a power position for the
 vast oil/gas reserves that is north of Iraq as well.
 It's a control issue with Socialism as its agenda.
 
 Who knows, the next thing on the UN agenda would be
 to ban all firearms in the US.
 Thats just kinda of a dumb thought though.

I don't know about you ground guys, but the air war in Iraq never ended. We are still attacking and killing Iraqi's--it just isn't news anymore.
 
 I too would just as soon not have another deployment over there. I would also rather have the Iraqi resistence make the regeime change happen, but they would probably need lots of support from our SOF.
 
 I do know this--what we have been doing since 1991 has done nothing but generate hate among the Iraqis toward us. We need to do something different.
 
 I have no problem acting unilaterally and us being considered a "rogue" nation by the Arabs and the Europeans. These folks ARE NOT our friends. They miss no opportunity to be anti-US. Ruffling their feathers a little will probably do more good in the long run. They will relearn the US means what we say. Further, these nations are more interested in what they can get from us through aid or trade than they are concerned with principle. I wonder if anyone over there even remembers what conducting themselves according to a principal is. Perhaps bringing the Iraqi conflict to an end vis increase in escalation will show them exactly what is meant by being guided by principal.
 
 Blaine

We have been the "nice guy" to many foreign nations since WWII, we are the first to give to any emergency, first to render aid to opressed nations, and are first to be yelled at, "yankee go home". Through our help to everyone we are labeled, "Evil American", they are getting ready to fight us regardless of what we do. The smaller nations run to who they think is the strongest and will win, for their own benefit.We have always been a peace loving nation and give to everyone now we have been attacked by the first wave, I for one don't want the second wave. Every day gives them more time to get ready. No one want's war but agression is hapening all over the world, it will be here next if we don't stop it quick. What have we received from the United Nations except a bill? -- no

I agree. We go to help these countries by ending wars, supplying food, etc, and in return we just get slapped in the face. I'm tired of that. I'm tired of these Anti-American crap all over the world, especially from Arab nations. I suggest we give them a reason to protest Anti-American crap after we gave them a swift lesson or two. These pathetic countries will be your friends the minute they need U.S.A. help, but once they received it, we just get stabbed in the back. I say to hell with those people. We're the sole superpower, so lets show these animals what a superpower can do.
 
 Watch out Iraq, because you're target number one!

Hmmm, no use in my parroting what Gunny Bob and T Lee have already said, but just because the US is a generous nation and just because we were attacked by a bunch of religious fanatics in a particularly heinous fashion, does not give us the authority, moral or otherwise to start taking out other world nations because we THINK they might have evil thoughts.
 
 If that was enough for convicting someone, quite a few males, I among them, would be convicted when we look at a beautiful woman. Not enough justification in either case IMO.
 
 Before I would agree to a declaration of war, which Bush said he would ask for, but now seems to have forgotten that minor detail, I want a smoking gun, not the fact that we didn't do it right the first time as the real reason.
 
 If we commit, I like most Americans will support our troops, but that doesn't mean I agree with the politics of it. Hmmm, does that sound familiar? Anyone who thinks that politics and war don't go hand in hand is young or has a very short memory.

We need a smoking gun?
 
 How about an assassination attempt on an american
 president? (this is brazen) and slaps our face
 
 How about using chemical weapons to kill its own
 civilians?
 
 How about state sponsored terrorism?
 
 Is there a statute of limitations and these no
 longer matter?
 
 Do we throw a few C/Ms at Iraq and hope they
 won't do it anymore?
 
 Dictators in the middle east or scared spitless their
 little applecarts are about to be upset.

If It Flies It Dies,
 
 Okay, so we should just leave Iraq alone because we THINK they have evil intentions? For one, I don't think, but know. Sounds cocky, doesn't it? Wrong. Try facts. You should be able to find them in the history books. With Saddam in power, Iraq will continue to be the same country it has been since it attacked Kuwait and dropped its bombs on Israel. And yes it does give us the authority to do the things like this. If we didn't, then who would? Nobody. Somebody(USA here) has to enforce and lay down some sort of laws. Sort of like how you see police officers in the streets, right? If the U.S.A. didn't do the things it does, then the Balkans would still be in a war, Kuwait would still be occupied, India and Pakistan would have dropped their nukes at each other years ago; Israel wouldn't even be a country, but overran decades ago, etc. I'm sure you get the picture.
 
 Also, why leave Iraq(Saddam) alone when it sponsors terrorism in the first place? Iraq is nothing but problems that needs to be dealt with once and for all.
 
 If you don't like how things are happening, don't watch the news. It's easy to pretend.

The Marine Times reported this morning that the Bush Administration will not present any evidence Iraq backed Al-Qaeda terrorists to the congress or the UN.
 
 The following is copied from an email brief I get every morning.
 
 U.S. Not Claiming Iraqi Link To Terror
 [Washington Post, September 10, 2002, Pg. 1]
 The Bush administration dropped what had been a central argument in favor of invading Iraq---no longer is it stated that Iraq has links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
 
 I would like to believe everything the government spoon feeds me also, but I just don't have the stomach.
 
 Bob
 
 
 Blaine,
 Good luck and hope I don't need your services.
 
 Bob

That's the problem, we act like the police force to the world and are hated for it.Then we have to shove our weight around and then dole out aid to the victims of our efforts.
 
 Who made us the cop on the block? I call BS on that thinking, we don't need the grief. If there was still a war in the Balkin's, so what. If India and the Pakies nuke each other, so what. We have too many problems here at home to be worring about what all the third rate nations do on their own soil.
 
 If a nation state even tries to attack us, swat them like a fly. But till there is a clear tangible threat we need to hold our water. Even if he had nuke capability he still dosen't have delivery capability.
 
 Prove to me he is a "clear and present danger" to Americn sovereignty and I will jump right on the war bandwagon in a NY second.
 
 I was young, ten feet tall and bullet proof myself at one time. Thank God I lived through that faze to see the the world without rose colored glasses.
 
 Absolutly amazing what you can see once you lose the tunnel vision.
 
 The Law of Unintended Consequences is much more than an abstract theory, folks. It's all too real, and it's looking us square in the eye.
 
 I am not "intimidated" by the Islamic world. Vietnam did teach me a few things though. Respect your enemy and NEVER underestimate him or OVERESTIMATE your own capibilities.
 
 The best action is as some have stated, put him on notice and slap his fingers covertly first. Don't make him a martyr to the muslim world and put him in a corner. The Khadifi raid was a good move and might work again. Make no mistake, if Saddam get's even close to nuke capability the Izzies will knock his dic% in the dirt so fast we won't know about it till the dust is clearing.
 
 Over throwing him will only stiffen the muslim resolve, sorry but that is the truth.
 
 Saddam is just like Fidel Castro, a dinosaur of a bygone age, he is a paper tiger and our government is using him as an excuse to wage an economic based war and lead the public down the primrose path of nationalism to do it. If we had been attacked by a nation state I would be the first to jump on the bandwagon to take names and kick ass, we weren't. We were hit by terrorists that hoped we would react by lashing out at the world and further cripple our credibility as a world leader. We do too much good and need to be discredited in the world view. They need to make us the bad guys to the world and if this keeps up they succeed and we lose, not militarily, morally.
 
 We become the bad guys and the Muslim world are the poor down trodden victim of "American Imperialism"
 
 My personal opinion is that if we do this, we will enter a new era of terrorism like the Izzies face on a daily basis right here at home. In the name of "national defense" we will lose most of our rights and freedoms and end up living a nation at siege right here at a neighborhood near you. Saddle stock will be at a premium and cars a luxury remembered.
 
 Do you really want your national budget dedicated to a massive military effort that will bankrupt us like it did the Soviet? I don't. I say instead of flogging Saddam, we hunt down and deal with the individual terror organizations. Much more cost effective IMHO.
 
 I am not gonna flog this dead horse any more, it is dead and that is it. GW will in the end do what he wants to and we and our troops will pick up the tab, at least we aren't at the mercy of Al Bore or Klinton, it could be worse.

"Only overthrowing him will stiffen the Muslim resolve"
 
 I do have to disagree. This man is a bully and if left alone
 will have weapons of mass distruction. As in A, he already has BC.... Has/ Is he not trying?
 
 This man is no "Paper Tiger" , you just strayed from
 your own advise in" NEVER underestimating your enemy".
 
 Let's wait till he gets A, then send in the JIrenes.
 At least we will have proof to justify our sending them.
 
 Better yet, and I sincerly mean this. (I do agree on this)
 Let's just turn him/them over to Israel. At least
 the job will be completed. No BS world politics.
 They already know they are hated, so they dont
 have to worry about hurting someones feelings.
 
 I believe if we dont deal with it, WE will have terrorism
 like the Izzies.
 
 Through Arab propaganda we are already the bad guys.
 They believe we wrecked havoc on Bosnia!
 Might as well give them something to really talk about.
 
 I dont like political wars and I believe George W feels
 the same way. I also dont want to send my sons to any.
 This war is different. We learned from Vietman, but
 this is not Vietnam. Neither is it WW1 imperilism.
 
 I have somebody very close who flies in the left seat of
 a B1. I believe he is in Italy now, I dont want to see him fly east of there.
 But he is ready....and willing.

Something to ponder.
 
 One of the posters mentioned that the US didn't deserve the attacks on September 11th.
 
 Just think, are we really that great, or have we simply been blessed by God? I've met many good and decent folks in other countries that simply will never, ever, ever have the opportunities I or you have recieved in our lifetime, simply based on where we were born. With a blessing, which we have truly recieved by being born in this country, comes a humble thanks for the blessing, as well as a humility for the blessing.
 
 What, as a nation have we done with that blessing as of late? We have blasphemed it. We as a society have accepted that it is ok to murder unborn children by the millions, simply because it becomes an inconvience to peoples lifestyle. Hey, I don't want to be bothered by raising kids, so I'll snuff it out before it ever takes a breath. The rest of the moral decay in this country, and total lack of responsibility for one's own actions is too long to list, but it is all linked. How long do you think a loving and merciful God will allow this country to squander what was graciously given to it?
 
 Just as God can, and has blessed and protected us, he can take that blessing and protection away. I think our country is it's own worst enemy in respect to not acknowledging what we have, why we have it, and what it will take to keep it.
 
 I don't see Sadaam as the cause, nor solution to our problems, and agree that for us to attack a sovereign nation that has not directly attacked us is a very dangerous path to go down.

Gunny,
 
 If the war escalates, I sincerely hope my boys can get most of it done from afar before we risk you and your boys up close and personal. However, such is rarely the case.
 
 TLEE,
 
 On this we agree. We have no business being in the Middle East. They need us to buy their oil more than we need to buy it. I say let them handle their own problems.
 
 Everyone,
 
 Please don't forget, that we have been bombing Iraq on a continual basis since the supposed "end" of the Gulf War. Hostilities have never ceased. They need to one way or another.
 
 Blaine

Col. Hackworths take on Iraq. I do respect his opinion most of the time.
 
 
 
 September 4, 2002
 
 Fifty-two years ago, on a cold day on the Korean front, my lieutenant gave me a copy of Chinese Gen. Sun Tsu�s classic The Art of War. I've been a disciple ever since; the book has become my military bible, and I read a passage daily.
 
 Sun Tzu lays it all out: Know your enemy; the art of war cannot be neglected; all warfare is based on deception; the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; make sure the enemy threat is real.
 
 Wise thinking about war and peace that Bush 43 should borrow from to help him counter the counsel of his advisers baying for Saddam's head. And since nobody has yet come up with sufficient justification for our grunts laying their lives on the line, the war gang would do well to slow down and study this brilliant Chinese general's words as well.
 
 By the way, none of these hawks � not one of whom ever wore a soldier suit, even though most were of draft age back during the dark days of Vietnam � or their sons or daughters will be accompanying our warriors on their march to Baghdad. As usual, it will be a war fought by mainly blue-collar Americans with no vested interests in the oil business.
 
 Back in 1991, when Stormin' Norman had the Iraqi army on the ropes, Super-Hawk Dick Cheney knew that Saddam had WMD (weapons of mass destruction) � but he still went along with Bush 41's decision to let the perps walk. Cheney should have stood in the door when 41 made that bad call and insisted we take out Saddam while we had the world behind us, and the forces on the ground to do the job. Or he should have resigned.
 
 Yet 11 years later, Cheney is the main cheerleader for attacking Iraq because � breaking news � Saddam has chemical and bio weapons. And, he keeps telling us, Saddam now also has nukes.
 
 Even though many experts say it isn't so, let's buy into Cheney's pitch and agree that Iraq has a few small nuclear warheads. The question then becomes: �Can he land them in New York City or Los Angeles?� The answer is: �No.�
 
 Saddam just doesn't have the fleets of ICBMs that we and 43's new best friend, Russian President Vladimir Putin, do. All he can muster at most are a few-dozen wheezing Scud missiles, onto which he could try to screw his alleged nuke warheads. On a good day, these throwbacks to the Vietnam era would have a range of 100 miles and be about as accurate as a blind man firing a shotgun at the sound of a bat in a forest.
 
 During the 50-year Cold War � the good old days through post-9/11 eyes � the Soviets had approximately 50,000 nukes. About half were capable of zipping across our oceans and turning our country into a radiated inferno. But we never took the Sovs out, even when their leader hammered his shoe and warned the United Nations that he was going to bury us. Even when we knew Soviet soldiers had one hand on the nuclear button while the other was holding the bottles of vodka they were slugging down.
 
 The hairiest time during the Cold War was when the Soviets deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba. The 90 miles from launch to target brought us to the brink, because we'd have all been glowing before our missiles could have struck back. Jack Kennedy demanded the Soviets get �em out, or U.S. Marines and paratroopers would. But first he got on the tube and told us the way it was: That we had documented U-2 shots of Soviet missiles, soldiers and launchers in Cuba. That we had no choice � we had to take them out, and the risk was worth the gain. Because he made his case, the American people said, �Do it, Jack.�
 
 Our president must bring us equally convincing reasons for going to war with Iraq. And it's going to be a stretch for 43 to prove that Iraq's WMD are a clear and present danger to our country when they're apparently not threatening the Middle Eastern states within their range, states whose leaders have so loudly said, �USA, don't use the military solution.�

Good post, T Lee, and anyone who know anything about Hackworth knows he is not a closet peacenik. He is a true warrior that has forgotten more about killing people than most people even want to think about, much less do.
 
 He calls it like it is. For him, at this point, there isn't a compelling reason for the US to go to war. And he is absolutely right. Now if Israel wants to take them out, they have the US's blessings as far as I am concerned, but, wait, we can't say that in public, might upset our supposed arab friends over there. Yeah, right.

Several good posts here. I just want to throw in my own take on the whole deal. Right now I don't see an invasion of Iraq. Iraq or Saddam has not attacked us and terrorist groups have. Maybe a link maybe not but at least not proven yet. I am with APF on enforcing the no fly zone rules and commit enough forces to do that effectively. Now there is no doubt he is a danger but not an immediate one. Terrorists organizations are. And that is who we declared war on is it not? Go after them. Go after them the same way the Israeles do. Kill them any way you can, bulldoze their houses, kick their friends and family out of the country and sow salt on the ground where they were.
 Forget this old west mentality of face to face at high noon in the middle of the street. Assassinate the leaders any way you can. Admitedly our intel organizations are not as good as the Mossad or as the KGB used to be, we need to take lessons. How do you think the Israels know which car to hit with a rocket? Which house? Intel and spy don't you think. We can do the same thing. And we should. We need to buy some people over there and make sure they stay bought on pain of death. Where is it written that if you threaten me and vow to kill me and I know you have the demonstrated means to do so I am supposed to stand there and be a target? Hell, I am going to ambush you before you get a chance and blow your flipping head off from hiding.
 Take that one eyed dude in Pakastan that is always spouting off on TV and claiming his terrorist schools don't have a part in this. Bull cookies. We know what he looks like and we know where he is. Take him out.
 Or that guy you see sitting beside Bin Laden and imitating a pump jack. Same deal take him. Or that blasted Arab TV station don't tell me we don't have the smarts to arrange an unfortunate explosion.
 One heck of a big difference between taking on a handfull of cutthroats and a whole nation like Iraq too. Also an assassination is a heck of a lot cheaper than a cruse missle or a smart bomb. Give the Kurds any thing they want they can work on Saddam. Tell the TV reporters to take a hike and keep our mouths shut and go after the ones who really plan to do us grief. Forget the PC bull about not offending some goat worshiper. Just do it and go on about business. Deny everything.
 End of tirade.
 
 BCR

Ha Ha, Rifle and Tank rounds are the last thing we need UMAV's, Cruise Missles, Laser guided bombs are the Only weapons that will be needed in this war and any other future war. Laser weapons, space weapons rule the day for our childrens defence.
 
 Personal weapons are for home protection from our
 local citizens. Not needed in war.

Sadly,it doesn't work like that,Bin Laden didn't get caught,or for that matter many of his top advisers.

BenLaden is Dead. Buried in Toro Boro Mountains in a cave thanks to the USAF, and B52 strikes.
 
 NO worries Mate

I do try to keep it civil. I will however give in this time. If Y'all find it offensive, sorry but this is ridiculous. High tech, teflon coated, low drag, go fast weapons only go so far, the trooper on the ground still has to do the dirty work of mopping up and holding the ground. BCR has the best idea IMHO, or CAT with letting the Izzies have at em, they definitely have more at stake in the region than we do.
 
 Infidelofone, GO BACK TO PLAYING YOUR VIDEO GAMES!
 
 All that high tech stuff is usless without flesh and blood human beings to back it up.
 
 THIS IS NOT A HOLLYWEIRD MOVIE IT IS REAL LIFE!
 
 People on both sides of a war BLEED and DIE. Murphy rules the battlefield not a computer.
 
 GROW UP!

Been thinkin' about this. I think Hackworth's comparision to the former Soviet Union isn't valid.
 
 The USSR, with all it's flaws, had RATIONAL leaders who were largely in control of rational people. They all wanted to LIVE and improve their lot in life. Because they were rational, deterrence worked--they knew they couldn't attack the US because our retaliation would be severe.
 
 The terrorists are different all togther. While the leaders may be rational, their goals are different. They seem more bent on destroying us than they care about improving the lives' of their people. As we've seen, the followers are certainly not rational. To that end, The threat of death and destruction to them is not a deterrent to terrorists. The threat of economic sanctions is not a deterrent either.
 
 Since deterrence does not work against terrorism, what should we do? How can we effectively stop them from hurting us? I think our president is on the right track. We hunt down and kill any terrorists we find, we destroy their facilities and equipment, we freeze their assets. Those actions seem to be effective in stopping the current crop of terrorists, but it will not keep future terrorists from developing.
 
 I think the way we keep future terrorists from developing is by making it extremely difficult for them to get support. Make it impossible for them to find countries that will harbor them--because those countries know the consequences of harboring and supporting terrorists. We do that by going after those countries NOW that support/harbor terrorists. Like "W" said, "either you are for us, or you are for the terrorists"--or something to that effect. Afghanistan was the proper first step, but we need to be consisitent with our president's theme and take this conflict to the next level.
 
 We will be alone on this. After all, Europe has been very tolerant of terrorists. Because the Europeans didn't "nip this in the bud" when they had the chance, they are now afraid and thus impotent to do anything about it. It is up the the USA. Only by fully implementing our president's plan can we sucessfully combat terrorism.
 
 Blaine

Blaine I got an idea and you being a fly boy you could probably help me with it. You are right about the terrorists not being rational and we are not being attacked by Swedish Lutherans either. How about rigging up lard bombs. You know rendered hog fat. Rig up one of your big transports to spray lard like they did agent orange in vietnam. Pigs are unclean and contact with pork is forbidden or and you don't get to go to where ever it is good martyrs go if you are full of unclean. Most all that part of the world in desert and short on water. Spray the horde with lard and they are all searching for water to ablute or dry clean or what ever to get lard off. Put their minds on something else. You and I know that being greasy with lard is just uncomfortable but it would blow their minds. If I read history correct one of the causes of the Sepoy rebellion in India in the 19th centery was the rumor that the enfield rifle cartridges were lubricated with pig fat. Can't you just see a load of the taliban rolling around in the sand covered with lard trying to get it off and be clean again.
 
 BCR

BCR,
 
 Great idea! We could get the Wyoming Guard with their C-130s that are equipped with the system to spray retardant over forest fires. We send them to the Middle East loaded up with pig lard and drop over enemy troops. We follow the lard with a leaflet drop telling them what they were just hit with. Talk about psychological warfare............
 
 Blaine

Blaine (Sir),
 I think Hack's point is valid because he is talking about Iraq, not the terrorists. If we keep the conversation regarding terrorists I can only agree. We have made significant inroads into the Phillipines since 9/11, we currently have better relations with them than well before we pulled out. But in reality we all know Iraq really isn't high on the list, Syria, Iran, Libya all support many more terrorists than Iraq. This just doesn't smell right yet. You can read my previous posts and see what I feel should be done. Saddam is great at playing brinksmanship and really is a two-bit barking dog, if we give him the out he will back down without biting. All he wants to do is retain his power, even if it is weakened.
 
 BCR,
 Trust me, they'll eat pork if it's all they have, I've seen it. In 1991 our unit guarded 7000 Iraqis in 9 days and the only food many had for the first 2 was the MRE's the Marines gave them when captured. I saw them eat the pork meals knowing full well what they were. I realize your post may have been tongue-in-cheek, but they aren't that religious, otherwise they wouldn't be doing what they are.
 
 All war is political, it is an attempt by one nation to bend another to it's will through force of arms. Once one understands that the epiphany occurs. We don't fight for Mom, Apple Pie and the Flag, at it's most basic we fight for our brothers (and sisters) and are sent there to keep the current establishment in power.
 
 Good Luck,
 Bob

Sic-em Blaine, we are on the same side. Back when I was AF we were being taught the ground pounders were ending their struggle because high tec weapons were on the way. A nuke can clear many cities or areas, the grunts have a much easier job. When the gauntlet is thrown, strike quick before opposition has time to prepair. Look at the caves in Afganistan dug by premeative means, what do you think Saddam is doing? I'm sure he's not installing warning sirens only. There are several oil rich countries in that area that support our opposition and I suppect Ben is in one of them living like he always did amoung friends. -- no

Gunny,
 
 Good point. I guess with Iraq, it will come down to how much we trust our current administration. I believe we do need compelling evidence before expanding the ongoing conflict, but revealing such evidence publicly may put our operatives already in the field at risk.
 
 To be honest, I think the whole Iraq thing could have been handled differently well before the Gulf War. I think the invasion of Kuwait could have been prevented by diplomatic efforts had we engaged at the right time. of course, all that is meaningless now.........
 
 Also, the (sir) isn't really necessary here. I have the utmost respect for you and your Marines and what you have done on the ground. Though I am not flying a Herk at present, I am a C-130 driver. USAF C-130 crews and Marines seem to watch out for each other. You can count on this: when the LZ is too hot and everyone else has bailed, a USAF C-130 crew will figure out a way to get you out. We've done this before........
 
 Blaine

Just a little "tag-on" here.
 
 I think we've finally got this thread on the right track.
 
 We either sit on our dumb asses and wait for something "reeaaallly bad" to happen, or we hit some of those SOB's first.
 
 "Vengeance is Mine", sayeth The Lord"
 
 "Revenge is Mine", sayeth I.
 
 Let God figure it out!
 
 2D

I think "terminate with extreme prejudice" would be a good way to handle the terrs.
 I think that some would never be missed if they just "disappeared" quietly in the night.
 
 Using our power is one thing, flaunting it to the world is a different matter. I still believe that the cost of starting a war will be very dear indeed. Both in terms of lives and and loss of world respect. We are riding high right now since "Desert Sheild/Storm" plus we have much world sympathy for our losses on 9/11/01. Lets use that to hunt down and deal with the TRUE perpetrators of the attack here, rather than seeking scapegoats to satisfy our blood lust.

I don't want another day like yesterday, or a year ago! If it has to be, let it be held "over there". Make a statement at the United Nations laying down the rules, shake some trees, and be ready to back it up. We have no esteem any where in the world through "may I" politics. We need another Teddy Roosevelt or John Kennedy to look them in the eye and say what we mean. We have become the big "Oaf", with a pocket full of candy, picked on by every little dictator around the world. How is a world leader supposed to act? Like a doctor or patient? -- JMHO -- no
 
 After all the blood, sweat, tears, and money, I'm still mad our leaders gave away the Panama Canal.
 
 Our Southern border is attacked every night by illegal aliens pouring into this country to take American jobs, have babys and get on welfare and free education we pay for. The money they make is sent back to Mexico. Our government can't stop it, we see it on TV. The border patrol catch them, send them back to Mexico, they return the next night. Put them in a chain gang repairing our roads, building bridges, working on rail lines for public transportation for five years and see how fast the border cleans up. The jobs they would take from construction would off set the other jobs we loose and most of the construction jobs are not operating because of lack of funds. -- How's that for a solution? Let an American get caught in Mexico and it takes an act of congress or much bribe money to get them out of jail.

Hooray for Bush, he stood up in front of the United Nations, gave a run down of Saddams short commings and said if they don't fix it, the USA would. Now let's see who does what. Saddam is on notice, what will he do? He has defied the UN and they never did a thing, what will they do if we take action on our own? The UN leader said it would be bad for US to act without the UN. Ha Ha --- I like Bush more all the time if he does what he says he will do. -- no

need one,
 I find it amusing that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on how quickly to go to war, yet we have similar feelings on Pres. Bush's speech to the UN.
 
 You're right, he laid the responsibility squarely upon Saddam and the UN. I believe by doing this, and the next step with the Security Council, we will lay the foundation for any further action.
 
 Only time will tell, but I still hold to the feeling that Saddam will give once he knows we (plus any allies we can muster) mean what we say.
 
 Good Luck,
 Bob

And I sincerely hope you are right. If we have to end up kicking his ass, I hope we do it with swift and total dedication. No fooling around once we start, take him and his minions out with "Extreme Prejudice"

Need One, I think Pres. Bush has the MOXY to get the job done. I just hope that our Congress will get behind him all the way, including the wishy washy types taking up space on the hill. I also hope and pray that the rest of the free world starts to realizes what a mistake it is to let this dictator Sadam go on doing as he as done for the passed 10 years.
 
 You are correct in saying lets keep the fighting over on their shores. Hit them quick and hard! If the rest of the Arab world doesn't like it or takes offense to our actions, so be it, we can deal with them later down the road also.
 
 In the last war in Sadam's country, our army was taken right up to the palace gates. The Arab nations got together I am told, behind closed doors and decided that Sadam was to be spaired. So another meeting was held behind closed doors inorder to tell the US delegates to STOP any further retalliation against Sadam.........simply pack up and go home. One of the reasons that our Gen. Swarskov (spelling) turned in his resignation. That was a big mistake made by our officials in giving those orders to him as far as I am concerned.
 
 It is time for all our Liberal political Congressmen to take notice and back our President BUSH. Sadam has a known mental illness. Such a person you can't deal with rationally, it is impossible to do so. Trying to do so, puts us further at risk as a nation. Sadam needs to be taken out, along with his whole crew of military leaders.

Here`s a Canadian slant on things. Isn`t it sort of like poking a hornets nest with a stick where Sadam is concerned? Why is Bush making sooooooooo much noise? Why didn`t he just send a special fource in and kill the SOB. In stead of all this hoop bla *JUST DO IT !*
 
 The USA has given Sadam way too much time to dig in. Isn`t 11 years enough time to realize that Sadam or Osama aren`t going to play by any rules as we know it?
 Enough said.. Just go do them both!! And anybody that even looks like them!!!!

Dusty,
 Leaders all over the world don't want to get this assassiation thing started between themselves. That would be like sending their kids to the front line in a war. They all like it safe as possible. War, killing, dieing, is just for followers and peons that hold no esteem. Assassinations went out of vogue in the 13th and 14th century, of course I just read paperbacks, some day I hope to get into the hard covers where the real knowledge is and the big words. -- no

Need one,
 
 I do agree that we don`t want to have to do things that way as for assasinations etc. One thing we all have to remember. Differant situations have differant solutions. What we have to remember is these ppl we are fighting , don`t play by the same rules as we do. Their thinking has been clouded by many years , centuries . All they see is hate for north america, or anybody else that`s differant than them. We must forget our morals and do what needs to be done. Get them before they get us. We need to find all ppl involved before life as we know it is gone for ever.
 
 
 Dusty