Its not so much that I support war but rather I believe in the very depths of my being that the terrorists are trying to or have succeeded in making weapons of all types in order to bring violence and death from the middle east to the United States.

I further believe that I would rather have my trained military do everything in its power (that is why we fund a military) to avert violence and death from happening to United States Citizens. If that means that the trained professional soldiers of the United States GO to ANOTHER COUNTRY to inflict violence and death THERE in order for violence and death not to happen HERE then I support that action.

I believe that Saddam Hussein has in the past and will (if given the opportunity) in the future supply weapons, logistics support, and intelligence to terrorist groups that wish to harm the United States. I also believe that given the opportunity Saddam Hussein would use those same devices himself.

I believe wholeheartedly that the United Nations is a farce. It has outlived its usefullnes as did the League of Nations and is totally irrelevant.

Yes, I support the concept of war with Iraq.

Why I don't.

Because our Republic was stolen from us. Because Americans a too ignorant to continue as a "free" society. Because the "threat" is manufactured. It dosen't exist, and never did. Because bankers are behind this, and every other "war" we ever let our boys die in. Because the French and Germans say "No" to supporting Bush is not a sign of weakness. It's just "good business" both Country's have long term oil Contracts with Iraq. What happens if the oil fields are burned or blown up? There goes the French and German economies. Where would they get their oil from???? (see guy in White House/Texas with connections to Big Oil! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) Cuz , for whatever you think of the Moslems as a people, as a business partner, there are few better. The deal in hard currency (gold) and they charge NO INTEREST. ( doesn't that give the BANKERS a reason to hate them?) Because this is "american imperialism" by the book and "W" prefers being a Monarch to a President.

Yes the old axiom is true, War IS the oldest business, and Bush is looking out for the interests of the Bankers and the One Worlders, has stripped American's of more rights than ANY president since FDR, and has sold the sovereignty of this nation down the tube.

And everyone of the pukes in Congress on the Right side of the aisle have marched in line for the party. Much to the joy of those on the Left.

Gee wasn't there some others from history that "marched in line for the 'Party'"

Bankers dropped bombs on Pearl?
Bankers dropped airplanes on the WTC?
Bankers invaded Poland?
Bankers invaded France?
Bankers got us involved in Korea?
Bankers got us involved in Vietnam?
Bankers got us involved in Panama?
Bankers got us involved in Somalia?
Bankers got us involved in Bosnia?


Jim

The choice was George Bush or Al Gore. Do you really believe Al Gore would have been the better choice? This ain't Utopia, it's the United States of America. Deal with it. A little pragmatism and hard work goes a lot farther than a lot of idealism and hot air. Life is a compromise and the definition of a compromise is something that no one is completely happy with. Am I completely happy with Bush? No. Do I think Al Gore would have been a better choice? No. It appears that whether you or I personally agree with it or not our nation may well be about to go to war. Now is not the time to go about waving out dirty underware around for all the world to see. Neither is it the time to undermine the confidence and faith of those who will be called upon to go forth and prosecute that war. We went through all that some 30 odd years ago and this country still hasn't recovered from it. We have become a society of cannibals who eat our parents and our children and our relatives and friends because they disagree with us. If you truely feel that our country is on the wrong track then put the blame squarely where it belongs. On those who expect and demand more and more from government and thus give it more and more power over our daily lives. Blame those who believe more in the power of the mob and imagery of the mass demonstration and yellow journalism than in the process of democratic politics. I was a small part of that previous experience and it left a lasting impression. To this day I very vividly remember walking through the airport in Oakland, CA to catch a more or less connecting flight on my way home and being spat on by citizens of the same nation whose constitution I had sworn an oath to defend and protect from all enemys foreign and domestic. That kind of personalized things and defined my opinions about people who would rather bluster and appeal to the mob to tear people down rather than to attempt to work within the proceedural structure and try to bring people together. It's not an exercise in philosophy anymore gentlemen. The iminent danger of war is real. Contrary to the sometimes popular belief, many of those our country is about to send into "harms way" to do war are some of our "best and brightest" and for the moment they deserve our full support. Whether you agree with our government or not, the members of our armed forces are going to do their duty to accomplish the mission given them and they will do it in your name and in the name of our country. Once the issue overseas is resolved and our troops come home safely there will be plenty of time to get our own house in order if you feel some house cleaning is needed. There'll be an election in about two years and if you work really hard maybe the beliefs and opinions some of you espouse will do better. Until then, deal with it.

Ram,

So you are a conspiricy theorist...............

Blaine

DITTO to Blaine's post. What gives RAM???

I'm staying out of this one......... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I can't believe I'm even responding to such an ignorant post, but what the heck!

1.) No, as any idiot knows, "Bankers" didn't drop bombs on Pearl harbors. But the actions against us by Japan WERE finacially motivated.

2.) WTC ???? Didn't know that was a war??? I though that was an act of terrorism?

3.) and 4.) Are you refering to WWI and WWII or both WWII??? either way, Axis/Allied actions were purely monetarily driven.

5.) and 6.) Probably the two most financially driven "police actions" we ever had to finance.

7.) The Canal Zone, that's that little sleusesway so the Commercial vessels can go from Atlantic to Pacific w/o rounding the Cape right??? OH Yeah!!! There is NO financial interest there at all now is there???? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

8.) You did see "Black Hawk Down" didn't you?

9.) Bosnia/Hertzacovina, Former USSR, political struggle to join EU, non acceptance of ED. Right again Oh wise one, no finacial interests there.

I didn't think anyone could make "the AlGore" seem inteligent. But you my friend have come really close with your naievetee'

Bit of a leap there isn't it Skid? I didn't even suggest that. But in retrospect, how much worse could ANY democrat have been????

Because "W" is a Republican, and Republicans control both houses, his actions are being questioned by no one. Result? Americans are losing their rights at an excellerated pace.

If one party did not control both houses and the Oval office there would be "grid lock" and your rights would erode more slowly. History repeats itself, look at the FDR era.

You seem to be taking the attitude of "when rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it"

If I'm going to be raped(of my rights) , I'ld rather fight.


I'm from Missouri. SHOW ME! This question came up in Barrak's threads also. Your talking in sound bites. Could someone provide tangible proof of the "iminent danger of war" This whole Iraqi thing is a big "Wag the dog"



And that mission is what? Do you, or ANY of those that will die know? They didn't know in Korea, Vietnam, Faulklands, Somalia, Bosnia.



C'mon, you and I both know our troops will NEVER come home. There will be "peace keeping" troops there for decades to come. Gotta keep that $$$ flowing, gotta keep that war machine chuggin'



And your point is what?? Shut up and sit in a corner and only show a desire for Freedom and Liberty every four years when the Government ALLOWS it???
Kinda supports my position that there is a problem doesn't it????

"We are the unwilling, led by the unqualified, to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful". Been there, done that. Have you?

Every day.

RAM

I posted originally in the spirit of positive thinking. I do support my president and this course of action. I posted why I do. I think I was polite to everyone and really did not see the cause for a bashing and name calling for this thread.

You really seem to have a bur under your saddle. Fine, go find the fellow that put it there and take it out on him.

And just as a side point. I think it is better support of the men and women in the Armed service at this time to say to them "I support you and wish you a safe and quick return and I also believe in the cause that you are being asked to perform." than it is to say "I support you but I think the cause is an immorall and unecessary thing to do."

Jim B

By the way for what its worth.

U.S. Army 1974 -1977
Finthen Army Airfield, Finthen Germany.

One man's conspiracy theorist is another man's historian. If you chose to attack an individule by hanging a name tag that is veiwed negatively by most lay people, rather than to prove untrue anything that I stated, so be it. Personally I expected something more profound from someone as learned as Blaine appeared to be.

Tell me. Do you think the founding fathers were mocked and called "conspiracy theorist" by the some of the colonists of the day? How wrong were the founding fathers?


Answer ONE question for me. The founders of this nation formed the nation as a Republic. Our Constitution guarentees "a Republican form of Government". Why do all the media, the Politicians, and the school systems keep calling/teaching America as a Democracy?

Don't give me that cop out Bullsh*t answer "We're both" because then I'll have to ask you to provide the proof, which you can not provide, for it doesn't exist.

A key point of the Nazi's gaining power and control was by including a common human frailty in thier platform. -If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually the people will believe it - Have not those in government here practiced the same game plan?

ANY one Nation can not have dual forms of government. And any society that believes otherwise is a nation of fools.

Where is our Republic and why have so many worked so hard to take it from us?

And I too.

Who do you think I "name called" or "Bashed"?

Do you take objection the correct usage of the words below ?
ignorant-
adjective;
Having no knowledge or awareness of something, or of things in general
idiot-
noun;
a very foolish person, esp. someone who has done something very stupid

Or was it the characterization between your statement and those by Al Gore that your taking offence to?

Well, let's see. I am a subject in a land where my god given rights as a sovereign native American have been stolen from me, replaced with the lesser corporate title of U.S. Citizen; the government takes more than half my earnings, quite literally at the point of a gun; Has done absolutely NOTHING to make anyone of us safer now than we were 17 months ago, but HAS stripped me further of the final threads of a free individule; and all indications are is that 10 years from now, today will be referred to "as the good old days"

If that is what you call a "Bur" yeah, I got one.

Skid.

You are right on here. I am a realist. Between Gore and Bush there was no choice. Bush was the only choice.

Thanks for the post.

RAM,

How was my post to you an attack? Maybe you can respond in kind to me and accuse me of being a Born-Again Christian. Boy, just think of how nasty an attack on me that would be, "hanging a name tag [on me] that is veiwed negatively by most lay people". Crud, you could even call me a gun owner or a WASP and jab even deeper. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

If you ascribe to Conspiricy Theory, then take courage and admit it instead of crying foul because you are afraid of how you might be perceived. I don't know about everyone else, but I respect a man with a dissenting opinion whom politely debates the issue and is honest about who he is. I can even be friends with such a man.

To set the record straight, I am about 90% in agreement with the Conspiricy Theorists. I especially like the book "Hope of the Wicked," and it's three levels of conspiricy. 1.) You have folks/groups who unbeknownst to each other are working toward the same goal and by coincidence, their activities are mutual beneficial to their respective causes. 2.) You have loose associations of people/groups who are aware of each other though connected directly. These folks/groups will ocassionally unite to further their cause. 3.) Then you have the folks/groups who are proactively working togther to futher their goals.

However, because I know who the ultimate forces are driving the conspiricy and how it all turns out, it is a non-issue for me. Further, I don't care what others may think of me because of the positions I take--even if it means I no longer appear "learned" to some. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Blaine

I say give 'im a break on this one, RAM. All he said was that the imminent danger of war is real. Unless somebody here thinks Bush is not prepared to spend American lives in Iraq, I think he (Skidrow) is right.

I think it is better support of the men and women in the Armed service at this time to say to them "I support you and wish you a safe and quick return and I also believe in the cause that you are being asked to perform." than it is to say "I support you but I think the cause is an immorall and unecessary thing to do."[/quote]
So you're...what? Suggesting that we lie?

Barak you should support our military personel 110%, to not do so is UnAmerican......

'Preciate your opinion, Mr. McCarthy; thank you very much.

Your more than welcome Mr. Comrad Clinton

I don't believe America should start fighting pre-emptive wars. And as far as this anti-terrorist thing goes, wasn't Osama bi Laden headquartered out of Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we fighting there? Oh, I forgot, they're our allies. And what about North Korea? Don't they pose more of a threat to us than Iraq? North Korea doesn't have any oil. That's why we won't go to war with them. I think the lack of diplomacy by Bush is a real shortcoming of his but I also think the unwillingness of Chirac to negotiate backfired in his face and pretty much made negotiations worthless. Again, it's too bad that Bush put the country and the men and women in the armed forces in this situation. Americans are dying today in Iraq. And what for? Because Hussein was such a threat to the US that the only solution was to rush off to war. I don't buy it. My son is sitting in a submarine out in the middle of some ocean and I pray that he comes home. Was Iraq that big of a threat to the US that American soldiers should be over there dying? War should be considered the last option when all else has failed. It seems to me that the first time I heard Bush speak about Iraq, I knew my son would be going off to war. I wonder how anxious Bush and the other fat cats would be to start a war if it were there sons and daughters going into harms way instead of yours and mine. It's sinful. Rick

Hi I'm frome Sweden and I can say that I and most people here don't support the war!

Why you ask?

1)Because we don't belive that the americans are there to free the iraki people frome Saddam! Why should they care about them now and not before! Why didn't they support the opposition troops after the first Gulf War and get rid of Saddam then! Because USA love that damn oil! Saddam hadn't got the power tventy years ago if not USA helped him then!

2)We don't like the american way of fight! Drop bombs, se if we hit the target, oops we killed some thousand civilians and missed the target, well we lost no own troops and have more bombs to drop!

3)Bush think he can do as he will and [bleep] in the rest of the world.
We don't like people playing world police and not many other countries likes that either! Bush have hurt the world politics for a long time forward!

4) Will the war protect america from terrorists? No, Bin Laden have happy days now! He knows that many people will be upset by the war and that it will be easier to recruit antiamericans after that.

5) Oil that's the prime reason USA must go to war

6) Isn't nukes in North Korea more dangerous then short distance Scud missiles in Irak?

Finnaly I hope that the war will get fast. I hope that the civilian loses will be small and that saddam will be killed!

I know that most people in USA are good people and I must say you have a fantastic country (but not perfect). Hope you vote on a better man/Woman then Bush next time.

Sorry about my language but I think that it is easier for you to understand my bad english than my swedish.

The Rush Limbaugh KOOK test still holds a LOT of water....WOW...I shouldn't be shocked and awed, BUT, idiots amaze me.....Type Rush Limbaugh Kook test in any search engine in the internet to see if your a kook.. I just call ya idiots......

Jauque Chaque Barak and Ram- Did You pass the test? I'd give ya an A plus...Good job....

I don't think the only reason for the war is because the US wants to police the world. I really feel that some kind of diplomatic solution could have been found except for the two following reasons;
1. Bush left no room for any other options once diplomacy failed.
2. The French stance in the United Nations of vetoing any resolutions that authorized war in Iraq made finding a diplomatic resolution of the situation impossible.

Chirac's offer for 30 days to disarm, which came the day after Bush gave Hussein 48 hours to leave the country, was too late. Why didn't he do this earlier? So, although I don't think the war should have been fought, I think the blame for breakdowns in the negotiations extends beyond the USA to Europe and the Soviet Union. It's too bad that some European countries put their economic interests ahead of world peace. Rick

You are mistaken you say: "I don't believe America should start fighting pre-emptive wars.". This war is not a pre-emptive war, it is a war to enforce the peace treaty that Saddam agreed to in 1991. Saddam agreed to complete disarmament of certain types of weapons. He did not do this and thereby violated the terms that ended the Gulf war. Our only option is to resume the war and eliminate him now

He has had 12 years to disarm and their is no reason to believe that more time will change this situation. President clinton was to lazy, corrupt and self centered to deal with Saddams violations of the peace agreement. After 9/11 we know that our enemies can attack us in our country with terrorism. We could lose 100,000s or 1,000,000s to an attack with nerve gas, anthrax, smallpox or nuclear bombs. Now is the time to stop Saddam and prevent him from attacking us.

Do you mean that you don't believe in peace treaties or enforcing them ? This would cause every war to become a fight to the death and cause millions of unnecessary deaths.

Your claim that "I don't believe America should start fighting pre-emptive wars." show the shallowness of your thinking. It is thinking like this that caused WWII and this war.

What should Bush have done through diplomacy to prevent this war ? The status quo is unacceptable. He got 100% of the security council to present an ultimatum to Saddam. This called on him to disarm immediately, then he gave Saddam 4 months to disarm and clearly Saddam was not disarming. The inspectors were not suppose to hunt for his weapons they where there just to observe his disarmament.
The French told us that they would support war against Iraq if Saddam did not disarm. They betrayed us and opposed taking any action to enforce what they had agreed to. Saddam killed our soldiers in a war that he started because of his greed. We have the right to enforce the peace treaty that he signed and the right to self defense and that is what this war is about.

Appeasers are responsible for this war as much as Saddam. They gave him hope that we lacked the will to stand up to him. People like you are responsible for this war.

Conrad

Jamt,
As an American I really could care less whether you like our President <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> or not. The world better wake up and see Saddam for what he is; a modern day Hitler. Lets see...kills his people if they don't agree with him, invades another country and develops chemical weapons to kill more people. Yep, sounds like Hitler too me. By the way, you and the rest of europe would be speaking only German if it was not for the Unites States military and a President that had the courage to commit troops to Europe. I am sure all sorts of people at the time couldn't understand why we were in Europe fighting the Nazi's. My guess is that you, your parents and grand parents are glad we did.

Thank GOD for the United States and the United Kingdom!!!

Don't forget the mighty UN <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />...all talk and never any action to back it up. Because of their inaction nobody takes them serious anymore.
joeyb

Saddam needs to go, but next election Bush should go too.

I am 100 percent behind the troops, I am mostly but not 100 percent for the war, but I am not for Bush.

Bush wanted(well actually had to have) this war for the wrong reasons, they are:
oil
reelection
revenge
new world order

lets put it this way Bush knows that there is a good chance he may lose the next elections, so he needs something for his followers to put him on a pedestal : he got rid of of Saddam. that maybe the his only claim to fame for a otherwise terriable term, he took the gamble.

MillerMan,

If it is his only claim to fame then it is a good one, the past President Bill Clinton only ignored the problem Saddam, hoping it would go away, guess what...........it didn't and now a Good President has taken the bull by the horns and will get this problem taken care of and maybe some others! Unless he really screws up something, he will have my vote in 04!

Saddam was all fine and dandy to the Republican party until he invaded Kuwait, he just had control of too much oil. were was the Republican party back in the 80's ? they were for him since the oil was flowing, they didn't care if he used chemical gas on his own people then.

yep, little Bush is just trying to make the Bush name good, since his Daddy sure made a mess of it, who left Saddam in power, not slick willy.

old man Bush was one of the worst if not the worst pres this country ever had.
now the kid is trying to make up for it. no problem but why drag the world into war just for that.

Human rights ya say, really as if bush cares about that deep down inside.

The shaw of Iran another man the oil men/republicans loved, look how he turned out to be.

Maybe you should exam the US history of complying with treaties before you use that as a reason for fighting a pre-emptive war. When you say this is not a pre-emptive war, please tell me what war was already taking place that Bush was sending troops in to assist.
As far as this being a war on terrorism, please find out the facts and you will see that Osama bin Laden was based in Saudi Arabia. Of course we can't attack the Saudi's because they're our allies. If you would delve behind the curtain of ignorance you would see that many terrorist orginazations our based in Saudi Arabia. It's the safest place for them to be.
As far as people like me being resposible for this war, actually the government counts on people like you to win support for the war. War should be a last option after everything else has failed. You stated Bush gave Iraq 4 months to disarm. Is that enough time to try all avenues of diplomacy? I don't think so.
I served my country in the armed forces and my son is currently deployed overseas (I wish I knew where but it is classified information). Is your child a part of this military engagement? I doubt it. Otherwise maybe you would not make such stupid accusations, and maybe you would question if your son or daughter had to die to prevent the "great threat" that Saddam presented to this country. Lets see; the greatest superpower to ever exist in the history of the world is threatened by a small country half way around the world about the size of our second largest state (California, by the way, I didn't want to confuse you). Yeah, I guess I can buy that. Guess that's why the Bush administration had to fabricate information about Iraq trying to acquire plutonium to make a bomb. Take off the blinder man and realize that this is all about oil and that's it. For Gods' sake!!! Ignorance truly must be bliss.

Miller Man passed the kook test too! Wow. I usaually don't post unless I've had a few busch's. Which by the way are "head for the mountains" a LOT better than miller beer...

actually I am having local micro brew right now, not miller beer.
the beer is Central Waters pale ale, from a small man two brewery in junction city, Wi
great beer <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, I want to wade in here and make a few points, that are no necessarily related, so I'll so them in bullet form:

� George Bush and all other world leaders are really stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I have a tremendous sympathy for them. If they choose to attack and disarm Saddam, as many of them now have, they run the risk of killing a lot of innocent people and taking one hell of a lot of flak for it. If they had chosen not to attack, but to continue the practice of containment, they would then run the risk of having Saddam do something stupid, which is entirely within his character, which would again result in a lot of innocent lives lost, and again result in their respective constituents giving them one hell of a lot of flak for not doing something sooner. It's not a conspiracy, Ram, it's a gamble. President Bush and Tony Blair are gambling that fewer lives will be lost - especially fewer British and American lives will be lost - with an attack than with containment.

� The peaceniks have failed to realize one thing. Peace was never one of the options; it was either war or containment - containment was not peace.

� A lot of the responsibility for this dilemma lies with the U.N., who recognized the problem that Saddam presents, passed many resolutions to deal with it over a 12 year period, but were unable to enforce any of them. This conflict has served to underline a huge weakness of the U.N., which is extremely unfortunate, because it is with regimes like Iraq's where a world organization is needed most. Unless, of course, you ascribe to Ram's theory, in which case we're faced with a world-wide conspiracy rather than an attempt to have an effective U.N., a conspiracy headed by the banks and multi-national corporations - "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!"

� I happen to think that President Bush and PM Blair have gambled on the correct side, although now that the choice has been made we'll never really know. I hope that they aren't wrong, or I should say I hope that they have not been ill-advised. One of my fears lies in the aftermath of the war. If the Moslem people of the world respond really negatively to the Coalition's attack, there's a chance that it could result in MORE terrorist attacks on the western world, thereby defeating one of the reasons for taking the action.

� France, in trying to sound noble in their refusal to back the U.S. and Great Britain, has come across as the most dishonest and disengenuous nation of all. It didn't take much digging to see the tremendous financial interest they had in keeping Saddam in power - they had too many deals already made with him, and a lot more on the back burner.

� Ram's banking conspiracy story doesn't hold water with me in a number of ways. First, on an emotional level, it reminds me too much of the Nazi propaganda prior to WWII about the international (Jewish) banking conspiracy. Matter of fact, his intro is almost identical. You wouldn't be making a subtle crack at Jews, now would you, Ram? If so, you and I are going to have real problems, as my grandmother on my mother's side was Jewish, and she lost a lot of relatives to Hitler's death camps, and that whole subject just happens to touch a few nerves with me. Secondly, beyond my knee-jerk emotional reaction, international experts (read University professors, who are fairly sheltered from business pressures and tend to be located well to the left of centre) have been warning us about the powder keg that the Middle East represents, and listing the causes for it: a volatile mixture of Islamic Fundamentalism, ancient tribal animosities, and unstable governments. These three factors combined, using oil money as a catalyst, are like sulpur, saltpeter, and charcoal. The outlook for this region - for a long time - has been one that's bad for world stability, bad for humanity, and yes, bad for business (more on business next). The professors have thus far failed to mention much about an international banking conspiracy being behind it all. Thirdly, on a philosophical/religious basis, I have a hard time swallowing Ram's vision of the world. I find his view of the world too cynical, too Machiavellian, and too depressing; I refuse to allow myself to be convinced that humans, particularly the humans that are our leaders, are that ethically empty. I have greater hopes for mankind than he does, and a strong belief in the Man's inherent goodness.

� The business/banking argument alone doesn't make sense to me, because war and stability each have their own business advantages. Some businesses benefit from the war - arms and weapons manufacturing, specifically. But others benefit from stability and international trade in other goods, like oil.

I better finish here because I'm starting to run out of ideas, it's getting late, and I'm getting the feeling that I've already said enough to give someone who really knows about Middle Eastern politics and business to blow me to bits. I pray to God that this war is over soon, that a minimum of innocent lives are lost, and that the brave men and women of the Coalition's armed forces return home to their loved ones, leaving us with a safer and more sensible world in which to live.

anybody that listens to Rush Limbaugh and believes all his BS is lost.

Paul Harvey, Good Day

Jonn G- Good post
Any country that sat back, turned it's back, did not care while Hitler gassed and murdered millions does not have the right to speak about anything. Wait a minute. That sounds like Sweden. Jamt?
Miller Man- You never furnish any proof of anything about the Bushs'.

Well Boss we didn't fight in WWII maybe we should, maybe not!

I can say this Sweden was not a perfect country, Sweden is not a perfect country! But there are no perfect countries (USA included)!

I will try to say how the situation in Sweden was under WWII. In the beginning alot of the aristocrats hoped we should join the German side! But never the ordinary Swedes they rather joined the allies! Under the war many helped norwegians that escaped, other went away to Finland and fight against Russia!

But there were many people in UK and USA that supported the Nazi in the beginning to. But americans always belive that they act right and other people wrong!

Actually the Englishmen had plance on attacking Norway (they wanted the swedish iron to). But Germany was faster!

Many Americans think that they joined the war against the Nazi to free Europa from the Nazists. But then as now it was mainly because of money interests! Alot of countries in Europe owned USA money.

And how was it with Hiroshima and Nagasaki was it necessary? Japan was already on their knee!

Jamt, It was our money that rebuilt Europe and it was our money that paid for WW II. You know as well as I do that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man and that estimates were that 500,000 Americans and several times that number of Japanese would have died. Have you ever read of the great numbers of atrocities aginst mankind by Japan? Hitler had nothing on them. We always foot the bill and show me wherein we profit monetarily now. We are arguing now amongst ourselves about the great cost monetarily to our country from this war. Americans are a noble people, that do things for the pure good of it. Heck no, we are not perfect but there are no countries that ever existed that can claim the amount of good that we have brought to this world. Sweden's humanitarian efforts are noted but sometimes some blood has to be shed or the evil guys like Hitler totally take over. Thank you for responding.

Well we are happy that you fighted against the nazis!

Alea iacta est. I hope that you will get Saddam this time and that not many people on any side will be killed!

But I'm afraid that the attack on Irak can lead to more terrorism than it prevent!

boss, what are you talking about?
proof of what?
I take it you don't understand how things were in the 70's and 80's with Iran and Iraq.

we sold Iran lots of eqiupment in the 70's ( even some in the 80's) and supported the shaw, and in the 80's we helped Iraq with there war with Iran , true we really didn't give Iraq arms put we gave them lots of information.

after the shaw of Iran fell the republican party still stuck up for him and pressured Carter to let him in the USA, Carter made the big mistake of listening to them, look what happen

Boss , oh ya Old man Bush was really for gun control. after he lost the relection he showed his true colors, he lobbied hard supporting slick willy on most of his gun control bills, he personally called every congressman and urged them to vote for gun control when it was bill voting time and he even called up slick willy and congratulated him on getting the new laws in.

yep he had really integrity, he was a back stabber, he wasn't man enough to do what really wanted to in office, he waits till later

You don't appear to be reading my posts:

1) This is a war to enforce the peace treaty that ended the
gulf war of 1991. It is not a pre-emptive war it is a
resuption of the gulf war.

2) I did not say that it was a war on terrorism. I said that
one of the reasons we are fighting is to prevent attack
by Saddam or one of his agents from attacking us with
WMD.

3) How would giving diplomacy more time help to prevent
this war ? france, germany, russia stated that they would
prevent enforcement of declaration 1441 by preventing
any declaration with a deadline from being passed. They
are afraid of war and our finding out about their
treachery. We could continue exploring "diplomacy" until
hell freezes over but would never make any progress.

4) Saddam has had 12 years to fufill the requirements of
the peace treaty. He really only needs a week or so to
do this. We found that he was activel obstructing the
inspectors. Continued inspection is a waste of time.

5) You don't think that Iraq is a threat to the USA. We did
not think that OBL was a threat before 9/11. They only
caused billions of dollars worth of damage and killed
3000 people. Saddam could do much worse to us. Why
should we wait until he attacks us ?

6) Just because you have a son that chose to go into the
military it does not give you any more right to have an
opinion about this war than I.

7) You should reconsider your additude about our military,
president and this war. It shows your cowardice and
betrays your son.

MillerMan The world is complicated, dangerous, and the Middle east is a powder keg. Bush was a lot better than Clinton, as a man, as a leader, and there probably is no such thing as a good policy in the Middle East because no matter what we do, it is not going to work most of the time with the Islamic dictators, the theocracies, the brainwashing there of the masses, etc. This is a clash of civilizations and Clinton made it worse with his policies. Note the Palestinians went nuts because of the Clinton attempted and failed deals. Carter gets a prize because we send billions to Egypt to bribe them to behave. We don't deal with them correctly because given the nature of the problem, by definition we cannot win in most cases. Bush simply did the best for us at the time as he saw it. Both the Dems and Repubs have messed up over there but as I said, sometimes you just cannot win. We can verify factually that Clinton was in fact an immoral man. Show me some facts that the Bushs' are immoral people.

Jamt, Terrorism is going to happen regardless and sadly so.

RickG

Is Bush fighting a pre-emptive war? Yes, probably so.

However, for the authorization to do so in this case.

1. The U.N. authorized military action against Iraq in order to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait AND to get rid of weapons of mass destruction (gads, I hate that term).


2. The Iraqi army was defeated and AGREED to a cease fire treaty.

3. The cease fire treaty says something to the effect of....

If you comply with stipulations A, B, C, D, E, and F, then we will discontinue the military action against your country. If however you at any time in the future do not abide by any of the aforementioned stipulations then we reserve the right to continue our military action to bring you into compliance with said stipulations.


ANY and I repeat ANY breech of ANY of the stipulations at ANY TIME allows for the continuance of military action to enforce compliance.


He was given 12 years to comply with the stipulations and failed to do so. He was given his 4 months plus 11 years and 8 months to comply. He did not.


How many ineffective resolutions that the U.N. should pronounce and the Iraqi leadership ignore is enough?


Jim

ConradCA

5) You don't think that Iraq is a threat to the USA. We did
not think that OBL was a threat before 9/11. They only
caused billions of dollars worth of damage and killed
3000 people. Saddam could do much worse to us. Why
should we wait until he attacks us ?


OBL sure was a threat before 9/11, that's why slick willy tried to kill him once and almost twice with bombs, he also told the cia to kill him if they could.
I sure knew he was a threat long before 9/11

Boss, old man bush was not a man of his word period. I am not going to go on about it.

as for the middle east, I lived there from Jan 2002 to Jan 2003 so I know a lot about it.
the good bad and ugly

>>1) Because we don't believe that the Americans are there to
>> free the iraki people frome Saddam! Why should they
>> care about them now and not before! Why didn't they
>> support the opposition troops after the first Gulf War and >> get rid of Saddam then! Because USA love that damn oil!
>> Saddam hadn't got the power twenty years ago if not USA
>> helped him then!

The reason we did not support the rebellion in 91 is that the purpose of the war was to liberate Kuwait, not to take over Iraq. The president promised the people and congress that was our objective and that we would not be drawn into a bigger conflict.

We did not place Saddam in power! We did help him fight Iran in order to ensure that the war between them ended in a stalemate. Iran is almost as bad as Saddam and we were for all practical purposes at war with Iran as they seized our embassy and diplomats.

Your claim that we are trying to take over the oil is obviously false. We could have done this at the end of WWII or at the end of the gulf war in 91. I agree that we care about what happens in this region a lot more than others because it has a lot of oil and there is nothing wrong about that. If we don't look out for our interests then who will ?


>> 2)We don't like the American way of fight! Drop bombs,
>> se if we hit the target, oops we killed some thousand
>> civilians and missed the target, well we lost no own
>> troops and have more bombs to drop!

You are an idiot to make this statement. We fight to win and part of that is avoiding suffering casualties. I suppose if your country ever has the courage to go to war you would be happy to sacrifice your live so the enemy can live. I doubt it.

Also, our bombs are plenty accurate to hit where we aim and thereby minimize civilian casualties. Saddam has taken advantage of our humanitarianism and hidden is troops and weapons in and among the civilians. He is hoping that they will die so he can use their deaths for propaganda. Also, as he choose to fight this war by insisting on breaking the peace treaty, all the deaths in this war are his fault.

I guess that you have been so protected by American soldiers that you don't value freedom. You are willing to give up your freedom to your socialistic government and can't understand why some people are willing to give up their lives for freedom.

The civilians who die in this war are give up their lives to defeat an evil dictator and that makes it worth while. Saddam has already killed millions of his own people and if left in power millions more are likely to die and the rest will live in fear and chains. Fewer innocent civilians will be lost in this war than he would kill in the future.

>> 3)Bush think he can do as he will and [bleep] in the rest
>> of the world. We don't like people playing world police
>> and not many other countries likes that either! Bush have
>> hurt the world politics for a long time forward!

Bush is the leader of the USA. He is not responsible to the rest of the world. His primary job is protecting the US, not pandering to appeasers and socialists.

What do you mean by world politics ? If you are talking about the UN then you must remember that the UN does not have any authority over the USA. It is a convenient place for countries to meet and discuss problems. Nothing else.

France, Germany and the other appeasers have destroyed the UN. It will have very little influence on future events and is waste of time and money.

>> 4) Will the war protect America from terrorists? No, Bin
>> Laden have happy days now! He knows that many people
>> will be upset by the war and that it will be easier to recruit
>> anti-American after that.

This war will remove Saddam from power and show the world how evil he is. It will also prevent him from attacking us or his neighbors and giving aid to terrorists. Defeating evil will show the terrorists such as OBL that there are consequences to attacks on us.

Do your really believe that Saddam is popular in the Muslim world ? He is evil and rules through fear. When the war is over his evil will be exposed for the world to see. The Iraqi people will be happy to be free of is rule just like Kuwait.


>> 5) Oil that's the prime reason USA must go to war

You are repeating your self.

>> 6) Isn't nukes in North Korea more dangerous then short
>> distance Scud missiles in Irak?

You are correct, but what does that have to do with anything. We have plenty of justification for taking care of the Saddam now before he gets nuclear bombs. North Korea will require a different approach. We have a perfect right to determine how we protect the US and it makes sense to deal with the weakest of our enemies first.

>> Finnaly I hope that the war will get fast. I hope that the
>> civilian loses will be small and that saddam will be killed!

You know that Saddam is evil but your are to weak and selfish to support his removal from power.

>> I know that most people in USA are good people and I
>> must say you have a fantastic country (but not perfect).
>> Hope you vote on a better man/Woman then Bush next
>> time.

You don't know anything about our country if you think that Bush is not a great president. I suppose that you prefer the corrupt and weak president clinton. clinton is largely responsible for the 3 evils we face in the world. He was to interested in himself and interns to protect our country. He gave 6 billion dollars to North Korea so they would not develop nuclear weapons. He did not enforce the Gulf war peace treaty. He refused to take possession of OBL when the Sudan offered to deliver him and he took no effective action against OBL in response to attacks on the Cole, US embassies and the World Trade center.

Thanks for responding ConradCA!

As I can see USA has done what they could to prevent civilian casualities and I'm happy for that!

Regarding UN it worked fine until USA started their own race yers ago! If you blame on France and German you are pretty gullible!

Well I prefer Clinton rather than Bush! But Bush is digging his political grave so good that I don't think that he will be voted ones again!

Jamt,
Please give us one example where the UN has done something other than LIP SERVICE!!!!!!!!

>> Regarding UN it worked fine until USA started their own
>> race yers ago! If you blame on France and German you
>> are pretty gullible!

This does not make any sense. France and the rest of the security council agreed (resolution 1441) that there would be consequences if Saddam did not disarm. Then when it was time for him to suffer the consequences they refused to take any action except step up the inspections. The inspections had no hope of success unless is was backed by the threat of military force.

Also, the UN has a long record of corruption and failure. Millions of people have been murdered without the UN taking any action. The UN failed to enforce resolution 1441 and is now worthless. We hopefully will avoid trying to use the UN to accomplish anything in the future. We also should prevent it from taking any action in the future through use of our veto.

>> Well I prefer Clinton rather than Bush! But Bush is digging
>> his political grave so good that I don't think that he will be
>> voted ones again!

What is there about clinton that you like ? He is one of the most corrupt and weakest presidents we have ever had. He is responcible for North Korea building the N bomb and paid them 6 billion $ to help. He did not take any effective action against OBL and is partially responcible for 9/11. He did not take any effective action to enforce the peace treaty with Saddam. He lied to the country. He commited perjury, which is a seriouse crime. He assaulted women including Kathleen Wiley when she was most vulnerable. Her husband commited suicide the same day she was molested by clinton when she met with him to ask for a paying job. She was a volunteer and her husband lost his job. clinton is a disgrace, corrupt, weak and self centered. What do you think about the pardons that he made at the last minute ? His brother-inlaw collected money from some of the people clinton pardoned. Mark Ridges pardon was in return for donations and who knows what else his wife was providing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

You don't know what you are talking about if you think that Bush is "digging his political grave". Bush and his actions are very popular in the US. 70% approval rating. He has integrety and honor. He has the courage to take difficult stands when he thinks that it is the best for the USA.

just becuase bush approval rating is 70 percent doesn't mean he will get reelected. it's to early to tell but that 70 percent comes in war times and just becuase they approve doesn't mean they want him back in. I know plenty of people in real life not internet life that voted for him and want somebody better in next time

I agree with you. Look at his father. But he is not digging his own grave.

this iraq mess he got us into is far from over, plus there is the long term effect long after the real fighting is over, this is unpredictable, but not looking to good IMHO

ConradCA, you should really read the National Security Strategy. In it you will see that President Bush himself refers to the war in Iraq as a "necessary PREEMPTIVE military action". So you can call it whatever you want but the fact of the matter is even the president knows it is a preemptive war.

In your next statement you say the reason for the war is to prevent Saddam or one of his agent from attacking us with WMD. Yet in a later post you say that the North Korean possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant. I don't get it. Don't you think an unstable leader like N.K.'s ruler is alot more of a threat than Hussein? As the Indians say, you speak with forked tongue.

As for diplomacy, as I recall Libya was a country headed by a leader who actively supported terrorists. I don't remember the US having to mount a full scale invasion of Libya to resolve the conflict. I believe when this great country uses its' full resources to resolve a conflict without going to war, it can achieve at it has many times in the past.

As far as not complying with the UN resolutions, if we start invading every country that didn't comply with UN resolutions, we would fight a never ending war. I guess Pol Pot killing 3,000,000 Cambodians didn't break any resolutions (although I know killing 3,000,000 Cambodians barely equals killing the 5000 Kurds by Hussein). But then again we really didn't have any oil involved in Cambodia did we.

I didn't say I didn't think Saddam was a threat to the US, I don't think he was very much of a threat. If you want to start eliminating the real threats to the US then we should go after North Korea. Then who's next. It is a slippery slope once you start down. As you will recall, the Anthrax that was sent in the mail after 9-11 came from the US military labs. Guess that should tell you where one of the biggest threats lie.

As for my right to have more of an opinion than anyone else, I never stated that I had that right. The difference between you and me is that I have a personal stake in this and you don't. I'm sure none of the warmongers on capitol hill have any stake in it with their children either. How easy it is to support a war when you don't have anything to lose.

As for me being a coward because I disagree with the president about sending troops to Iraq, I believe you should listen to President Bush when he refers to people having the right to disagree with the government. I can see how on this board if you don't agree, you are labeled a coward, or called un-American, or un-patriotic. Because I don't agree with you or the president means only one thing. I don't agree with you or the president. If you don't agree with the coach's play calling of your favorite football team, does that mean you don't support the team? I realize the branding of people as coward or un-American is done out of ignorance so I don't hold a grudge against you.

I support our troops and pray for all the forces to come home safely after fulfilling their duties. I also told my son the same thing. From reading your other posts, I really think you need to chill out. People in the US have a right to express their feelings without being personally attacked. You all should remember this in your future posts as this is the difference between the US and Iraq, or Korea, or Iran. You should remember this everytime you are about to condemn somebody for having views contrary to your own. Be glad you live in a country where people have the right to express views contrary to the government.

http://forums.anandtech.com/

you guys want see were they really argue the war etc go to this message board

rick g
We hear you . Do you really hear us when we say the only reason you can speak freely is because so much blood has been shed for that right? Saddam is hanging, mutilating, etc. now people who spoke out. Sincerely hope your loved one will be Ok. Just do a lot of praying. This thing is deteoriating. If anything, announcing to the world months ago we were going to disarm Iraq has only given them a great deal of time to plan the heinous deeds they are engaged in now. It really proves he was the Hitler we knew he was and will do anything to anybody, including us here in this country. It is just a bad situation and the 20th Century was full of such bad sits that killed hundreds of millions. Unfortunately, this century is not looking much better and there are not any easy or perfectly correct solutions. I would not be surprised to see this backfire. We just have to call them as we see them at the time. Sitting back and doing nothing proved disastrous in the last century.

Boss, I do hear you and I agree with most of what you say. My only real difference is that war should have been the last option. I have heard all the arguments about 12 years and all that. The truth is that the last two different presidents didn't force Hussein to disarm and then this president comes in and in 4 months decides the only option is war. I think it was a very premature decision and I think that a real weakness of Bush is his foreign policy. The minute I heard Bush talk about Iraq, I knew we were going to war because of Bush's initial statements. He was hell bent for war and nothing was going to stop him. That is quite scary to me. Thanks for the prayers. Rick

I don't agree with the name calling in this article, but there is some very accurate info. Good food for thought however. Keep an open mind and THINK.

Underestimating the Enemy
by Gene Lyons

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public." --Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Tooling along I-430 for an early morning assignation with a
horse, I noticed a woman in the inside lane with a patriotic
message in her rear window. In big, carefully-scripted white
letters, it read: SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ. Then beneath:
REMEMBER 9/11.

Having hoped to avoid this accursed war for a couple of
hours, I found myself marveling at the thought processes--if
those are the right words--that created this manifestation of
patriotic zeal. Support our troops? Absolutely.
Now that the fighting has begun and it's clear that the
bewildered little man with the cocky swagger and the fear in his
eyes has staked his political future upon overthrowing Saddam
Hussein--as odious a tyrant as the U.S. has ever armed and
supported--one can only pray that American and British soldiers
get the job done quickly, with maximum effective force and
minimum loss of life.

Alas, it's already beginning to look as if Bush's advisors,
serene in their certitude, have badly underestimated the Iraqis'
willingness to defend their homeland against foreign invaders.
But hold that thought.

What a people we Americans are becoming. War as a "real
time" 24 hour cable TV event. "Mediathons," Frank Rich calls
them; war as the logical successor to the O.J. Simpson trial, the
Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, and the quest to find Chandra Levy. All
war, all the time. "Embedded" correspondents
in flak jackets live from the front. The ultimate reality TV. And
now, a few words from our sponsor.

But "REMEMBER 9/11?" Madam, that was a different Arab,
called Osama bin Laden. Not an Iraqi, but an exiled Saudi. Osama
denounces Saddam as an "infidel," and would enjoy seeing him
dead quite as much as you would. Not one Iraqi among the 9/11
hijackers. Attacking Baghdad in response to 9/11 is the
equivalent of attacking China to avenge Pearl Harbor.

Unfortunately, many who support President Junior either
don't know or don't care. "Whatever anyone may say about
weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage
brutality to his own people," writes the eminent biologist Richard
Dawkins in The Guardian "the reason Bush can now get
away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans,
including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11.
This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious
prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that
Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity.
It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Center, right? So let's go
and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right?
And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in
there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet."

Dawkins points out that al Qaeda can only feel "gleeful."
Provoking a worldwide conflict with the Great Satan is precisely
what the 9/11 attacks were intended to do.

Junior unashamedly used fear to sell this war. In his
ultimatum to Saddam, he claimed that responding to "enemies
only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide."
Suicide, the man said.

Yet Bush promises to bring democracy to the Middle East. So
here's my problem: if millions of Americans, like the lady with the
slogan in her rear window, seek vengeance against an enemy
they can't identify, what would Arabs vote for if they could?

Writing in the Washington Post, veteran Middle Eastern
correspondent Youssef M. Ibrahim summarized a poll taken by
Zogby International in six Arab countries from Morocco to Saudi
Arabia. And guess what? Huge majorities favor greater political
involvement by Islamic clergy than their governments allow.
Fewer than 6 percent think the U.S. is attacking Iraq to bring
democracy. Instead, "close to 95 percent were convinced that
the United States was after control of Arab oil and the
subjugation of the Palestinians to Israel's will."

Look at a world map. The U.S. can't fight everybody from
Morocco to Pakistan. Shock and awe notwithstanding, there are
too many of them, too few of us, and too much territory. There
are already signs that ideologues who talked an ignorant, easily
manipulated Bush into this global game of "Risk" had no idea of
Iraq's determination to fight. The joyous mobs they foresaw
greeting U.S. troops haven't materialized. Retired U.S. generals
are telling reporters that precisely as they'd warned, American
and British forces are in danger of becoming overextended and
having their supply lines interrupted. For patently political
reasons, the war began before sufficient force was assembled.
The outcome's not in doubt, but it's looking like a far longer,
bloodier struggle than anybody wanted.

rick g
Bush II probably had this planned before he took the oath. I have read that he decided it would be part of his fight against terrorism after 9-11 but I do not believe it. We blew it bigtime in not finishing this in 91. Saddam actually had his jet ready to leave and then we called it off. What did he care. If we continued, he died and if we did he flees and already had zillions stashed in overseas accounts. Once he left, the rest of the invasion would have been easy. The Iraqis who "tried" to do something paid with their lives after they were told by the higher powers, that being us, to rise up. The numbers I have heard actually make me nauseous. Saddam really cannot go this time. He has been marked up for dead. And we certainly cannot fight every country in the world which hates us. The Bushes have a history lesson they want to finish. For some reason, I reckon my revulsion for Hitler types and the immense suffering they cause, I support this, none of the reasons, WMD, etc. that have been put forward. Iraq, being more secular than some of it's neighbors, has more of a capacity for change after it is over.
I've studied the Vietnam conflict enough to know there are very few, if any similarities, and Americans are not going to tolerate much in this one anyway, regardless of what the polls show now. I am still trying to figure out why we do this and yet never took "proper" revenge for several hundred Marines blown up in their sleep in Lebanon.

Hey Guys

RickG has been polite and has given his reasons for not being if favor of this military action.

I do agree with the military action but dont disagree with Rick.

He has a son in the military and from what I can infer from his posts is that he does not believe that the use of military force at this point had been proven to the point that he is comfortable FOR HIS OWN SON to be in this theater of operations.

Give him a little break. I can live with the dissenters and dont believe that there is just an ipso facto conclusion that those who dissent are un-american. It is the manner and method that they dissent that raise the issue.


By the way, read the post that starts this thread. I am the most hawkish of the lot I am sure.


Jim B.

Boss, I think the real problem in 91 was having Powell and Schwarzkopf negotiate the treaties. As you probably know, the only real threat to Hussein was the Kurds. They were the only organized opposition with any real leadership. When the US allowed Hussein to use armed military helicopters within its' own borders, they unknowingly gave Hussein the tools to put down the Kurdish uprising that was taking place. If you read accounts from US pilots monitoring the air space over Iraq, they all talk about the helpless feelings they felt when the Iraqi's attacked the Kurds with the helicopter gunships. The US pilots had strict orders not to intervene from Washington. Why this was allowed to happen is beyond me.

The no fly zone over the northern part of Iraq was established to prevent Hussein from wiping out the Kurds, but it was too late as far as the uprising was concerned. By the time the no fly zone was ordered, the Kurds were heading for the Turkish border. It prevented a further slaughter of the refugees, but the uprising had ended and Hussein found himself back in power after he had already considered the war lost.

Bush 1 assumed that it was a foregone conclusion that if Hussein was defeated he would give up power. I'm sure Bush 2 is trying to make up for Dad's mistake.

Jim B.
I'm sure that the fact that my son is in the service and deployed who know where has some affect on my position. I think that when your children are the ones who are doing the fighting and dying, it makes you question if there really are no other solutions available. I just hope that it gets over quickly and that all our sons and daughters come home safely. Rick

RickG

I hope that all of the husbands and fathers and brothers and sons and wives and mothers and sisters and daughters return home safely, quickly, and in good health. All of the members of the service are in my thoughts daily.

I specifically pray for a safe return of you son.


When you do talk with him give him a message for me please. Tell him that I say

"Thank You for your service to our country."


Jim

I'll second that.

Thanks, while I may not agree with the presidents decision, I am proud of my son and all the other service men and women who our doing their duty. I know when I was in the service, I was lucky enough to not be in at a time when the US was at war. I will pass the message along when I talk to him next time. Rick

Got a call from a liberal friend the other day. He cut loose on the war -- so I put the matter in the simple terms that even he and I can understand (and he agreed!):

My attitude toward the war rests on the same basis as my attitude toward well armed self-defense:

--- When the matter is the unsettled question whether someone is going to die, I prefer that nobody die.

--- When the foregone or logical implication is the settled certainty that someone's going to die, and I or one of mine is a candidate, then I prefer to have the decisive first say in the matter.

Any questions?

The verification of AlQueda cells in Iraq this week and the release of the info on the Iraqi group who tried to get to Mr. Bush's ranch earlier this month before the war started kind of put the finishing touches on your last statement. Nope-I have no questions.

.

rick_g

Saddam Hussein is an evil murder. The world would be a better place without him. The Iraqi people will be better off without him. Why do you want to allow him to remain in power ? The Anti-war people are effectively supporting him and helping him to remain in power and continue killing and torturing his people.

We don't need any more legal or moral justification in order to remove him from power. He is evil and that provides the moral justification to remove him from power. He violated the peace treaty and that provides plenty of "legal" justification to remove him. We also need to justify this war on the basis of national self interest. Like you said we cannot afford to remove every evil dictator in the world.

National self interest is important because wars are expensive in both economic costs and the soldiers we lose fighting a war. One of our reasons for this war is to preempt an attack on us or our allies. Another reason is to send a message to the rest of the terrorists and murders in the world (such as North. Korea) that they better not mess with us. It is also vital that we enforce the peace treaty that ended the gulf war. So there are at least 3 legitimate reason for us to fight in Iraq.

I don't understand why you think preemption is such a bad thing. It is not as if we are attacking a peaceful country without provocation. Would you rather we waited until Saddam attacked us again ? How many 1,000s or 1,000,000s of our citizens are you willing to sacrifice. No one can ever win a defensive war.

When carter and clinton were president our enemies could be pretty certain that they would not be seriously attacked. This gave them the freedom to attack us without having to worry about our reaction. Why do you think that Iran held our diplomats hostage ? They knew that carter was not going to attack them. Why do you think OBL attacked the Cole, the WTC, our embassies ... ? They knew that there would be no serious consequences from clinton. We need to provide consequences in order to prevent our enemies from attacking us. That is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the 1930s the British and french failed to enforce the peace treaty that ended WW1. They waited until it was too late to easily defeat Germany and millions of people died because of that. They attempted to avoid war by appeasing Hitler. They tried to do everything possible to avoid war. They tried everything possible, explored every diplomatic alternative to avoid war and they failed. They are responsible, at least partially, for causing the war and the millions of deaths. You want us to make the same mistake.

Now to refute your points:

I agree that North Korea is a greater threat than Saddam. Why does that mean we have to attack them instead of or before we fight Saddam ? Saddam is relatively week now and that is why we should take care if him now. It makes no sense to wait until he attacks us or gets stronger. It is good strategy to defeat your enemies when they are weakest and good strategy wins wars.

North Korean has a very strong military and a very weak economy. This is pretty much the opposite strengths of Iraq who has lots of oil. Therefore we need to defeat North Korea economically not militarily. We have a perfect right to select the policy that is best to deal with each one of our enemies.

I never said that we had to enforce all of the UN resolutions. We have the right to enforce those that are vital to our security.The united nations is just an place where nations can meet to discuss issues and cooperate to deal with problems. It has no more authority to deal with problems than is provided by the nations who participate. We used the united nations to mobilize the rest of the world against Iraq in 91. That does not diminish our involvement in the war with Iraq. We provide the vast majority of the soldiers in the gulf war and our soldiers were killed by Iraq and Saddam. We drew up the peace terms and we have the right to see that they are enforced.

Everyone in the US has a stake in the success of failure of this war. You don't have any more stake in it than anyone else, except for the soldiers who volunteered for the military. You are not at risk of dying in Iraq, just your son and he chose to join the military. We all face the risk of an attack at home by terrorists and it is better to deal with them by attacking them.

I never said that you could not express yourself, I never said that you could not disagree with the president and I never said that you were un-American. I called you an appeaser and a coward because of the cowardly policy of appeasement that you advocate. You have the right to express your opinion without being physically attacked. The first amendment does not protect you from verbal attacks and criticism. If it did then how is it that it does not protect Bush from your attacks ?

Conrad

You made my first point when you said: "The Anti-war people are effectively supporting him and helping him to remain in power and continue killing and torturing his people." As I stated before, there have been many worse tyrants in the 20th century who have committed far worse crimes against humanity and the US has turned the other cheek because no economic interests were involved. If the US had been decrying and defending human rights abuses throughout the last century, this would be a viable reason to fight a war. We haven't done that so therefore it is a moot point. By the way you should remember Waco and Ruby Ridge.

In your next statement you say "He is evil and that provides the moral justification to remove him from power." When we start letting the president or the government decide who is evil and who isn't, we enter upon some very dangerous territory. Remember who the government has supported in other countries in the past, the Shaw of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Duvalier in Haiti, Hussein in Iraq. Also, remember that Ho Chi Mhin was originally supported by the US until France objected and we ended up in Viet Nam. I, for one, do not want the government or president deciding other countries politics as we have such a bad track record.

You then state "I don't understand why you think preemption is such a bad thing. It is not as if we are attacking a peaceful country without provocation. Would you rather we waited until Saddam attacked us again ? " I think it is a bad thing because we are crossing a line that we never have done before. I think you should recall the phrase- Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That does not only apply in Iraq. The elected officials are supposed to represent the will of the people. Seems to me that Bush and yourself has this a little backwards. By the way, when was the first time Hussein attacked us?

"In the 1930s the British and french failed to enforce the peace treaty that ended WW1. They waited until it was too late to easily defeat Germany and millions of people died because of that. They attempted to avoid war by appeasing Hitler. They tried to do everything possible to avoid war. They tried everything possible, explored every diplomatic alternative to avoid war and they failed. They are responsible, at least partially, for causing the war and the millions of deaths. You want us to make the same mistake." This scenario is not relevant to this as the circumstances that led to Hitlers rise to power were fueled by the humiliating condtions of the Peace Treaty that the rest of Europe forced on Germany. It would be impossible to do what Hitler did in 1930 today because of the capability of our satellites.

As for refuting my points, I am not going to engage you in endless banter. I don't think you have said anything to refute my points. I personally think that this war is about oil and nothing else. For every point you make about the evil of Hussein, I can make a point about another despot who the US either supported or ignored because there was no economic involvement on the US's part. I didn't believe half the crap coming out of Washington before the war, and I believe even less now. Don't forget who controls the news you get. You only hear what George 2 wants you to hear. Very Scary.

By golly, I think I finally understand at least one point set forth by the anti side!

Simply put, the U S has ignored evil when it manifested itself in man's inhumanity to man in the past, ergo we should now honor the rule of precedence and ignore the manifest evil of So Damn Insane.

And in regard to what authority decides or defines who's evil, I'm stuck on the fact that my nose very reliably tells me when I'm smelling a rotten egg -- I don't need any official criterion to specify the exact point at which it ceased being "fresh" and became rotten.

Apparently also -- as applied to making a preemptive self-defense move -- I should let an intruder in my home kill me before I can shoot him. It's not enough to see him kill a neighbor, then see him come into my house, see him point a gun at me, and see the tip of his trigger finger start to go white. Now I've begun to wonder whether the impact of his bullet in my gut is enough to justify my own response -- or whether I must die first, then shoot.

I think I'm getting the drift of the anti arguments. Hmmmm. A former brother-in-law of mine used to say he'd never use violence, not even (he said!) if an intruder were raping and killing his wife and daughter. I never understood his "logic" before. But now it seems simple enough that I should've understood it. Duh!

Ken -

I think you've finally reduced at least part of their rhetoric to a somewhat readable premise?? They are of course, totally wrong. I must acknowledge their right to believe in and espouse whatever cause they follow. I don't however, have to respect and acknowledge its validity <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> . Thanks for posting your insight. Regards,

Ken,
first off let me say I really appreciate your insight into reloading and related fields and the info you provide.

As far as my post regarding evil tyrants, the point is not that the US has tolerated them before so we shouldn't start going after them now. The point is that the government decides who is evil and who isn't based not on the facts, but on what that person can do for the US. Hussein was just as evil when the US was supporting him in the war with Iran. At the time he was the lesser of two evils so we supported him. He was a rotten egg then but the US couldn't smell him because it was convenient for them not to.

Pinochet in Chile killed thousands of Chileans and the US supported him. They had squads of military personell show up and drag people out of their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen again, no trial, no chance. Funny how the egg's smell depends on who is doing the smelling.

As far as someone breaking into my house and waiting for them to shoot me, I believe a pre-emptive action would be more similar to shooting anyone who walked in front of my house just in case they were going to break in.

That brings me to the real problem with the right and the left. Any statements posted that disagree with the right or lefts doctrine and you get all kinds of labels thrown at you and any opinions that are expressed get twisted all out of original context like you have done. I'm not a liberal or a conservative.

In the last election I voted both Republican and Democratic. I even voted for Bush. I just think that the war was a foregone conclusion from the time Bush started pushing for it. It is too bad that every effort was not made to avoid Americans dying in a foreign land to liberate a group of people who don't want or appreciate it. Isn't that the spin that the gov is putting on it. Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I believe Hussein is an evil man. I also believe there are other evil dictators who possess a greater ability to use WMD against the US than Hussein. That seems to bother alot of people on this board.

We just lost a young Army private, a 19 year old, whose family lives just a few miles from me . He died in the taxi explosion. He had just written a very long letter to his family. He told his mother he was doing this for her, hoped she would be proud of him, and it was part of God's plan. He knew he was doing a good thing. If only one person has a better future because of his sacrifice, then his life is honored before the Creator. We know some Iraqis are going to be better and better people becaused of his sacrifice. It doesn't have to be all, not thousands or a nation, just one he laid his life down for.

Boss,
I am really sorry to hear the bad news. Please pass my condolences onto the family. I hope that what you said does come to fruition for our troops and the people of Iraq. His mother should be very proud of him for doing his duty for his country.

On a lighter note, I heard from my son today and passed along your message. His ship is in Hawaii for a week and then he will be going back out for at least two more months. I told him to tell everyone on the ship that we are all behind our troops 100%.

Again, sorry to here about the death of a young man. Rick

Sorry to hear that, 1 is too many but I know there will be more before it's over. My prayers go out to one and all, including their familys. Bless them for picking up the torch.

Saddam has killed Americans! He did it in the gulf war. Enforcing the peace treaty is perfectly reasonable even if it takes a war.

I can think of quite a few wars that we have fought where the enemy provided less of a threat to the USA. North Korea did not threaten us when they invaded the south. Grenada, Panama, Haiti and Yugoslavia were not direct threats to our security. You can't argue that this war is unique in our history. Or that we are

"crossing a line that we never have done before."

I said that we have a right to determine when to fight a war. We cannot attack every country who commits "crimes against humanity". We have to deal with the world as it is and that may mean dealing with dictators. One of the things that we learned in Vietnam is that a war must be in our own self interest for us to fight it.

Iran is the best example of how your ideological based policy failed completely. Carter failed to back the Shaw of Iran because he was evil and Iran end up with a government that is much worse.

Our country has a government and we delegate the authority to it through our elected leaders to determine when and where to fight wars. This has not changed as long as our country has been in existence. If you don't like our leaders you can try to vote them out of office in the next election. If you don't like our form of government then you can change the constitution. Otherwise why don't you move to another country ? You should be happy in France.

Our officials to not have absolute power. They operate under our constitution. Bush sought and obtained approval for this war from congress. There is no way you can say that he has absolute power!

Our government is a representational democracy. This means that we elect representatives to make decisions for us. They should do what they think is best for our country not through polling.

Anyway, the vast majority of Americans approve of what we are doing in Iraq! So in this case they are representing the will of the people. Does this mean that you agree with their actions ?

So how did the spy satellites detect the North Koreans development of nuclear weapons ? Our enemies have a pretty good understanding of the limitations or our spy satellites and can easily work around them The satellites cannot protect us from events like 9/11. They won't protect us from ships sailing into our harbors and setting off nuclear bombs or releasing nerve gas either. You should realize that often the best defense is a good offense.

Ken Howell - I just re-read my post above and realize that it didn't sound at all as I intended. I did not mean to say that your premise was "somewhat readable"; I think I meant instead to say that you had reduced their somewhat questionable reasons to an eminently readable, succinct, statement, or something like that. Sorry `bout that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> . Regards,

Your second sentence kind of sums up your whole argument. "Enforcing the peace treaty is perfectly reasonable even if it takes a war." Kind of oxymoronic.

Your argument does not make sense. Peace treaties fufill a function between nations at war. They allow wars to be ended and peace resumed without requiring the complete destruction of one party. If peace treaties are unenforceable then every war will be a fight to the death.

When we defeated Iraq in the first gulf war the war was ended with a peace treaty. This treaty required Iraq to disarm. This is something that they only agreed to because the alternative was continued war with our invasion, occupation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam from power.

Iraq never fufilled the requirements of the peace treaty. That means that it is null and void and the state of war resumes. This is just the way peace treaties work.

If you don't/can't understand this then you are "oxymoronic".

The SHAH of Iran was about like Sodam Insane, he ruled an illiterate people with an iron fist. His CIA was I think called SAVAK. The Ayatholla Khomeni had been in exile in France for many years. On his return the people revolted. (Their religion was more important than civilian government.)
The Shah was our "hey boy" in the mid-east for years. If the Saudis.i.e. made waves he threatened to kick tail, and could because he had the best war machine for miles. We (USA) supplied it to him.
When he had to flee our embassy was beseiged, and eventually taken over.The hostages were held for 444 days. Years of repression were blamed out on our country. Right or wrong we were blamed.
One hostage was John D. McKeel,Jr. USMC He and one or two other Marines escorted some people to the Canadian embassy. Those people later escaped the pandamonium.
Johnny was treated like a hero on his return to Balch Springs, Tx. There was a parade in his honor, he was invited to lunch with the rich and powerful in Dallas and Ft. Worth. He was given a Colt .45 acp with an inscription " 444 Days , Never Again" I fired the second magazine ever through that pistol.
Johnny was never comfortable with his hero status, and I asked him once why he didn't stay at the Canadian embassy. "I'm a Marine and my place was with my brothers," he said.
He was offered a gram of hash once and refused, because he couldn't take it and then go back to being a drill and tell the recruits that they couldn't take it.
That's why I support our troops. It's called standing by your brothers.

I meant to stay out of this, but I can't let this one go by.

ConradCA, I don't know if you actually believe this (in which case you really ought to be swimming in the kiddie pool with the other public-school graduates, rather than trying to hold your own with the grownups), or whether you're just trying to draw somebody out; but it's pretty outrageous stuff. Hopefully nobody believes it; but just in case they do:

Our officials do not operate under our Constitution. It amazes me that somebody on a bulletin board having substantially to do with firearms could straight-facedly assert that they do. A wussy, corrupt legislature, a judiciary that makes laws instead of interpreting and judging them, and an executive branch that rules with dictatorial executive orders has made a complete joke of the separation-of-powers doctrine that has always been central to the Constitution. The government regularly and with impunity violates every Amendment in the Bill of Rights except the Third. Juries are stacked in favor of the government through voir dire, are warned against exercising their Constitutional powers of nullification, and jurors are punished when they exercise those powers. The government can and does violate all three of the people's fundamental rights (life, liberty, and property) without due process whenever it feels like it.

All of this is getting progressively worse (under both major parties) as time goes on.

Just a further example is that Congress did not declare this war. They were given the opportunity to do so, and they declined. In addition to all the other unconstitutional things he's doing, Bush has no Constitutional business sending troops into Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war.

And here's a question I asked a few days ago on another thread, but that nobody answered. Saddam Hussein has absolute power, because he's a dictator. But can you think of any governmental power that Saddam Hussein has (because he's a dictator) that Baby Bush doesn't have, what with the advent of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act and the fact that he can executive-order anything he damn well pleases?

There may be a few more technical hoops he has to jump through to get such things done, but Patriot II is waiting in the wings to take care of that, and anyway the hoops aren't terribly serious restrictions. For example, all he has to do to have you secretly arrested and thrown in prison indefinitely without being charged with a crime or allowed access to counsel is to hint that you might be peripherally involved in some terrorism investigation. Saddam can secretly arrest and imprison whomever he wants without having to officially declare him connected to a terrorism investigation--big whoop. Good thing we have the Constitution, hey?

Saddam can legally send his military, what's left of it, to operate against the Iraqi people, and Bush has to claim that those people are targets of a drug investigation before he can do that. But Bush is busily trying to get that law (it's the Posse Comitatus Act, in case you're taking notes) repealed, in the name of the War On Terrorism.

Saddam can have his secret police break into your house in the middle of the night and shoot you in the head. So can Bush, as long as he gets a pet judge somewhere to rubber-stamp a "dynamic-entry" search warrant on trumped-up evidence. Patriot II will go a long way toward eliminating that pesky requirement as well.

Saddam can have whatever woman he wants sent to his bedroom whenever he wants. Bush hasn't done that yet, as far as we know, but our experience with Clinton demonstrates that he could, if he wanted to.

Just what is it that his dictatorial power allows Saddam to do that the Constitution would successfully prevent Bush from doing if he wanted to?

Lysander Spooner: "Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Barak,

If the situation here is truely as bad as you portray it to be, I've gotta ask the question; Why are you still here? Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting, requesting nor telling you that you should leave. I simply don't understand why, if you believe the government of this country is so oppressive, you continue to tolerate it and stay here. I'm genuinely curious.

My point was that the Ayatola is much worse that the Shah was.

Because it's my country, and I love it. It was people like me who inherited this country from those who shed their blood to make it free, not the treasonous powermongers who are enslaving it, or the bawling sheep who rationalize, accept, and empower their own enslavement. We may make a pitiful comparison to the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, these people and I, but we're pretty much all America has left at this point.

If somebody invaded my home, I wouldn't meekly accept the situation and go try to find somewhere else to live. Nor would I content myself with living in a tiny corner of the house and trying to confine my activities to those that would not unduly annoy the invader.

Would you?

Do you?

Relax! Don't get your blood pressure up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I told you I was just asking because I was curious. I wasn't trying to make a point. I asked what I thought was a legitimate question and you gave a legitimate answer. Your initial statement and your closing paragraph are even things we agree on. However: your expanded explaination in your first paragraph leads me to another question. Since you stated that it was "people like me", rather than people like us, who inherited this country does that mean that in your opinion it is any less my country than yours? I only ask because in your response you seem to imply that I should be out somewhere mongering power or bawling. Did I misconstrue your expanded remarks?

In answer to your questions: "Would you?" No. "Do you?" Do I what?

Jacccck Chiracccccc Baraccccccccck- Isn't it great to see liberation at work..Let FREEDOM ring!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I't probably makes you squirm to see GW succeed like he does. (although, of course it's the milatary, not just GW, but your too stupid to realize that) Makes me giddy to see the USA and GW kick major Butt.. FREEDOM Jacccccoccccck FREEDOM Chiracccccccccccccc, FREEDOM, barackkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Well, taking my cue from the estimable Ken Howell, I'm not going to further hijack this thread ("Why I support President Bush" seems an exquisitely inappropriate title for this particular tangent); rather, I'll respond to your message in a new thread, probably entitled something like "Treasonous Powermongers and Bawling Sheep" over in the Hunter's Campfire. No, scratch that; I guess I'll make it the Second Amendment forum. It's not specifically Second Amendment-related, but it is political.

See you there!

Sounds reasonable. I'll look for it there.

Your views, which basically are anarchist and some would say into a narrow constitutional construction, would work in a world where all people are moral and responsible, but since most aren't and the world is so very complicated now, they no longer can be relied on to deal with our problems. You did not hijack so don't get paranoid, too.

No, I'm not quite anarchist yet. I have studied the work of a number of anarchists, and I respect it. I think that it's quite possible that an anarchist society with a few generations of tradition to support it might work very well indeed; but so far I haven't found any realistic prescription for a way to get from where we are now to an anarchist society with a few generations of tradition to support it.

Strict constructionist? Yes, sort of. I'm not an uncritical fan of the Constitution: I believe it has some pretty serious fundamental problems--as is evidenced by the gulf of difference between the government it describes and the government we have today. However, I do think people who swear to uphold and defend it should be held to their word, and at least fired (preferably imprisoned) if it can be demonstrated that they have in any way broken that vow.

But it is absolutely not the case that libertarian political theory is intended only for a world where all people are moral and responsible. On the contrary, libertarian political theory is one of the only ones on the market that assumes that no one is moral or responsible. The brand of socialism that calls itself liberalism assumes that pretty much everyone, even criminals, is to some extent moral and responsible, and the brand of socialism that calls itself conservatism assumes that at least the political leaders, and sometimes government workers as well, are moral and responsible.

Conversely, libertarianism is a principled political position (based on exactly one principle), while both liberalism and conservatism have either no principles at all, or so many and so vague and subjective that they might as well have none. (I say this only because I have never had anyone either liberal or conservative manage to state and defend any small set of objective principles for either view. I could eventually be proven wrong; but I haven't been so far.)

If you'd like to discuss my political orientation (or libertarianism in general) further, I'm willing; but I'd prefer that you start a different thread in which to do so, perhaps in a different forum.

Nope Your views are all over everywhere on this one topic alone and not narrowly related so we can maybe do it later when this unfortunate conflict is over, the fighting part of it.

ConradCa, I tried to reply earlier but got sidetracked. We don't know if the shah or khomieni is better or worse or how many Iranis prefer one over the other, unless you have better info than I. I can tell you this, Sgt. McKeel told me that when his captors saw Americans anger thay were shocked at the reaction because it was only 52 people. They expected to get invaded and treated the captives nicer for a while. When they saw it wouldn't happen they became more cruel for a while. That lends some creedence to not just carry a big stick but use it.
Maybe Saddam thought the same thing, who knows? I am not smart enough to know if more diplomacy would have helped or not, but our President/shah/king/ayotollah has sent our best young citizens to war, and I for one will not give the enemy any aid or comfort. If we don't like our king we can vote him out. Iam a descenant of men who didn't believe in kings, they fought the british army for freedom. I don't believe in kings either, Barak I'm with you.

My father added two corollaries to the Roosevelt Policy that I think are quite insightful:

The Roosevelt Policy:
Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Harold's First Corollary to the Roosevelt Policy:
If that doesn't work, speak loudly and wave your big stick.

Harold's Second Corollary to the Roosevelt Policy:
If that doesn't work, shut up and use your big stick.