Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Support

Thank you Sir, my point exactly, in much fewer words!
I do not wish to hobble our military like we did prior to WWII or what Klintoon did to it during his watch, we NEED them. They however shoud be used more judiciously IMHO.

Cutting the societal leeches, foreign and domestic, off at the knees and putting those resources to work at home promoting business, sane health care and education would be a far better way to regain the America we once had and cherished.

An Imperial Rome we do not need to be, nor should we become. We all know what happened to the Romans!

Or even better, refraining from extorting said resources from the people in the first place.

Roger that Sir!

In earlier days of our countries history we allowed the business magnets to build the ties with other countries. They exploited they opportunities in other countries. Needless to say it didn't help our image but at least strength wise we were respected. Those exploits were brought home in many ways to benefit us.

I find it odd that in dealing with the rest of the world our leaders find bribes criminal offences. Ever go to Mexico. If you don't pay off the cop on the corner your car will be stripped. This is true from Del Rio to Mexico City.

In some parts of the world, that is the only way to do business. To atribute another society with our home grown philosophy is stupid. If we are to deal with them it must be on their own terms.

When I was in Germany the Krauts were allowed to charge us what they could get. Prices to Germans were regulated. Good old American ingilnuity
(any way I spell it looks wrong)worked. Get a German girl to go into a store with a GI and purchase somthing then call the cops for overcharging someone with the ken card.

When playing in someone elses back yard, they get to make the rules.

When all comes to all, this conflicy with Iraq really boils down to stabelize the situation in the whole middle east region. I think that is the goal of all involved nations. they just cant agree of in wich way to do this.

However , I think this campaign will cost a lot of american blood. The US military machine will win in the desert, but in urban areas the defenders has the advantage. American soldiers did not get to Bagdad in 1991, but they will do it this time. And Saddam will probably defend the city at all costs. Saddam measures success after how well he is doing. If he still sits after a war that costs hundred of thousands of lives and total destruction of Iraq, saddam still think he has won. The air force can`t bomb Bagdad to hell because of the civil population, so ground forces has to move in. Once they are in, they won`t face the enemy befor he is so close that you can smell him. Then the airforce cantuse bombs, because they will harm friendly troops. In my opinion it will be much the same type of fighting as the rangers did in Mogadishu, only they will be better prepared this time. But so will the enemy. remember that senior members has fought in both the Iraq-Iran war and the first golf war, so it is an experienced enemy they will meet.

Saddam will loose at last, but it will cost.

The key is that his popularity among Iraq's people is very brittle. They support him now only because they are afraid of him. When they are called to sacrific their lives for him the vast majority of the citizens of Iraq will surrender or turn on him.

Once we defeat his forces in the open field, capture most of his regular army, occupy most of the country and beseige the cities he won't stand a chance.

Sorry guys but Barac is right and is one of the few Americans who seems able to view objectively, The USA and world have bigger and greater problems than Iraq, Iraq has the greatest oil reserves, USA is the biggest user of oil in the world and thats how the rest of the world see,s it.
Syria, Iran and Palistine harbour more terrorists , Saudi Arabia finances Bin Laden, yet B. Bush targets Iraq get real ,why do you think the United nations is unwilling to condone the conflict, because under its charter a country may only attack another if it is at risk of being attacked, is Iraq going to attack USA duh I think not, I would be more worried about the threat of the Yellow peril guys, don't let Nationalistic fervour overide logical thinking,anyway my best wishes for the safe return of all combatents and a prayer for there familys, Godbless.

I was listening to a local talk-radio show the other day, and a guy called in and said something I found very discouraging.

"I'm just sick to death of the French," he sputtered. "They want we should give Saddam more time? How about this: how about we give him just as much time as he gave those folks in the World Trade Center?"

So now apparently the feds have succeeded in creating in (at least a segment of) the general populace the impression that Saddam Hussein was behind the events of 9/11/01. Perhaps that's why the war has so much popular support. I had thought that Americans were a little smarter than that. I guess I still hope that some of us are.

We are becoming the new Evil Empire. It was disheartening to observe how much of the stuff Baby Bush said about Saddam Hussein last night is actually true of Baby Bush as well.

Don't think its any more absurd than the guy I heard on a talk show a while back who said the attack on the Trade Center was part of a covert Jewish plot to gain U.S. support for Israel. Just goes to show that if you spend enough time listening to talk shows you're likely to hear just about anything. Maybe even something you agree with. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Doesn't have to be credible. Can't be wrong because its just an opinion. Doesn't have to be factual. Doesn't have to be one you agree with. I guess you just pick one you like and go with it. Don't much care what the rest of the world thinks about us. Been to most of the rest of the world and I wasn't any more impressed with them than they probably are with me. At least we've got flush toilets and toilet paper instead of a foot print on either side of a hole in the floor and a left hand. Guess it all depends on your perspective. At least we can all be happy in knowing that we're right. At least in our own opinion.

Just because there are worse enemies than Saddam that
does not mean we should not take him out now when it is
relatively easy. As a matter of fact it good strategy to deal
with your enemies when they are weak. Would you rather
waited until he has developed nuclear weapons ? Or used
his chemical and biological weapons against us ?

I don't care what the United Nations or other countries think.
We can decide for ourselves what constitutes a treat to the
US. Who would have thought that OMB was a big threat to us
before 9/11 ? But they launched the most deadly attack on
the US in modern times.

We need to take Saddam out for the following reasons:

1) We need to make a statement to the rest of the world
that can't mess with us with out suffering enormous
consequences. Especially after the 8 years of corruption
and weakness under Clinton.

2) Saddam is a threat to us and very well could attack us.
It would not be very difficult for him to smuggle anthrax
or VX gas into our country and then use it to kill 1,000's
or 100,000's of our people. It would be very difficult for
us to trace this back to him.

3) We fought a war against him, Americans died in that
war and we stopped the war and left him in power only
because he agreed to our terms to end it. But he never
complied with the agreement that ended the war. If we
can't resume the war to enforce the agreement that
ended the war then what is the point of have an
agreement that ends a war ?

4) We need to clear the decks and get ready to deal with
N. Korea. Another problem caused by Carter and Clinton.
You do remember that they signed an agreement with N.
Korea in which we gave them 6 billion dollars in
exchange for them stopping development of nuclear
weapons ? They just lied and Clinton let them get away
with it. Just the other day Clinton lied about this situation
when he said that he did not know they were cheating.
It was published in the paper back when he was president
and he did not do anything about it. He was worried that
it would hurt is reputation.

I can't see why people are getting so upset about us
removing Saddam from power. Do you think that he has any
right to be the leader of Iraq ? He came to power through
murder and torture and that is how he maintains his rule. He
is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people
through wars that he started. His own people don't support
him. Look at how easily they surrendered in the Gulf war and
now.

About the only reason that might make sense is that the
people of Iraq will suffer. Do you think that they are not
suffering under the rule of Saddam ? He started 2 major
wars, both of which he lost with many of his people dead. He
has caused the suffering of the people of Iraq under the trade
embargo. He takes the money and food provided to feed
them and used it to maintain his power and gains a
propaganda point that the embargo is killing 100,000s of Iraqi
children. He also has the power to end the embargo by giving
up his WMD, but chooses to hold on to them.

The real effect of the anti-war crowd is providing aid and
comfort to Saddam. He sees the large demonstrations against
the war and finds a glimmer of hope that we will give up and
back down. The protesters by providing hope to Saddam are
partially responsible for causing this war.

I agree! His childish use of name calling is disgusting.

I am done discussing this issue with him until he appoligizes to our president and the people who post on this discussion board.

Conrad

Most of your points have already been addressed elsewhere in this thread, so I won't go all into it again.

But North Korea? Are you implying that after we colonize Iraq we'll set about colonizing North Korea too? I suppose I wouldn't put something like that past a power-mad megalomaniac like Baby Bush, but I'm damn sick of footing the bill for all the toys he uses in his little imperialist adventures.

I'd be a lot less upset if Baby Bush had to pass the hat before throwing his wars, and get voluntary contributions from all the pro-war people--and then be forced either to mount a campaign that didn't exceed those voluntary contributions, or to give them all back. Then I wonder how self-righteous we'd be about "liberating the Iraqi people." $21,000 for a JDAM unit to put on the tail of a 2000lb low-drag bomb, or for a new car, a nice new computer, and a raftload of cool guns?

I don't think our government has any intention of colonizing Iraq, N. Korea or any where else. But Saddam is a tyrant who given a chance would do harm to americans. I believe he needs to be removed from power and who else but the U.S. has the muscle and the will to get it done? And when this is done if N. Korea wants to play hardball with us they should expect similar treatment.

I gotta admit I'm positively impressed by Baby Bush's decision to withhold Shock & Awe when it looked like it might not be necessary. I didn't expect it from him.

I am, of course, inclined to look at it a bit cynically: it didn't cost him anything, but it'll make him look like a hero when the war's over. But I'm not sure he's smart enough to analyze things like that.

Anyhow, what's important is not what I think Bush wants, or what Bush says he wants, or even what he really does want; but what the Islamic extremists in that part of the world think he wants. And I think they think he wants to colonize Iraq. Further, I think that when he gets done doing to Iraq what he has in mind, it's going to look to them like an American colony. And I think they're not going to like that.

That's what has scared me into spending all kinds of money on TEOTWAWKI supplies.

Barak we have reached some common ground! I think your right to be concerned about how our enemies view our actions. And I think its great that you are preparing for whatever may happen down the road. As we used to say in the boy scouts, be prepared. We probaly will see some kind of fall out at home from this war were fighting. Still its better to kill them over there than to try to keep them from killing us over here. Having a prowesteren Iraq will make that easier. We also agree that there is some monetary interest in this venture. I think this is an excelent opertunity for the U.S. to lay hands on some Iraqi oil at a very good price. (and free is a very good price)