Maybe, Just Maybe, Good Was Done?

[JMortensen]

1) The 1500 dead soldiers, and the soldiers dying in Iraq every day are no less honorable than any other soldier in our history. But their deaths were avoidable. How come everytime someone says "we should preserve the lives of our soldiers" a republican accuses that person of "dishonoring the troops". Wierd...

 

Written by a Vietnam Vet:

 

 

Opposing the war and supporting the troops.

 

Consider the reasoning:

 

I oppose the war, but I support the troops.

 

I oppose the victory of America over Iraq, but I support the troops in their effort to achieve victory over Iraq.

 

I oppose the efforts of President George W. Bush to remove Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq, but I support the troops who are carrying out the orders of President George W. Bush.

 

I oppose the use of arms and equipment to defeat Iraq, but I support the troops who are using those arms and equipment to defeat Iraq.

 

I oppose putting out fires, but I support firefighters.

 

I oppose arresting criminals, but I support police officers.

 

I oppose flying around in airplanes, but I support pilots.

 

I oppose what you do and how you do it, but I support you.

 

I oppose what the troops are doing and how they are doing it, but I support the troops who are doing it.

 

I oppose the war, but I support the troops.

 

What does that mean? If the troops you support win the war you oppose, will you be happy or sad?

 

Pure nonsense. This is the babbling of cowards. If you oppose the war, you can't possibly support the troops whose only business in Iraq is to make the war you oppose. If you support the troops, you can't possibly oppose the victory they are fighting and dying to achieve.

 

People say they oppose the war but support the troops because they are cowards. They know how contemptible it would be to spit on the troops today the way the cowardly anti-war movement did during America's war in Viet Nam, and as much as they want to re-live the glory days of the 60's, they just don't have the guts.

 

How are the troops you support today different from the troops who were slandered and cursed during America's war in Viet Nam? There is a tie that binds the troops of today and the troops of all previous wars. It is that we all took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We fought to defend the freedom of cowardly anti-war fanatics, too. And we have never failed to do so. The fact that there are still cowardly anti-war fanatics proves it.

 

Face it; you just don't have the guts to spit on us anymore, do you?

 

Guy Evans

Aurora, Colorado

101st Airborne Division

Phu Bai, Viet Nam, 1971

I just grabbed that off the net so I can't verify it's authenticity, but I can verify the validity of its sentiment.

[crazy280]

Mod Edit: deleted

[JMortensen]

Mod Edit: Some stuff deleted.

 

The idea that I was agreeing with is that it is not logical to say "I oppose the war but I support the troops."

 

EDIT -- I think this is the key statement "I oppose the victory of America over Iraq, but I support the troops in their effort to achieve victory over Iraq." How can you possibly support the troops, and not their effort to achieve victory. Because if you don't want them to achieve victory, that basically requires that they lose battles... or stated in another way... that they DIE. If you don't support the war then you DO NOT support the troops. You might sympathize with them, or think they're being misused, or want to bring them home, but you do not support them IMO.

[pparaska]

1) The 1500 dead soldiers, and the soldiers dying in Iraq every day are no less honorable than any other soldier in our history. But their deaths were avoidable. How come everytime someone says "we should preserve the lives of our soldiers" a republican accuses that person of "dishonoring the troops". Wierd...

 

Not weird at all. Bush and his guys decided for many reasons to subject our forces to this action in Iraq. I hate to call it a war, because that brings up images of gross firepower, carpet bombing, indiscriminate wiping out of huge numbers of people, a la WWI and WWII. This is more of a regime change police action.

 

Avoidable? some of them for sure. Remember, I stated earlier that I was one that felt it would have been better to wait 10 years to go in covertly instead of using ground troops and shock and awe. But I wonder if 2 years later the positive aftermath of taking the UN to task on their mistakes, seeing European governments change their minds about dealing with ruthless dictators and WMD holders, and middle east governments recentering themselves with more Politically Correct tactics.

 

3) I'm not letting my "feelings" blind my thoughts. I am a very logical thinker. I simply did not want to have to repost all the arguements I've made, and others have made, in past threads regarding the Iraq war. Quick summary: Republicans always try to defend the war by stating the positive results of it. They are basing that argument on the belief that war was the only way to go about getting those results, which is false. And since I try to be a good Christian, I would have chosen the less bloody alternative. There are numerous threads on this site about the same topic, I'm not trying to restart that argument.

 

Less bloody (over a short period of time) is not always best, IMO. The end of WWII was quite bloody at the hands of President Truman. Many feel that the blood vaporized in Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved lives. Continuing to let Saddam's regime's atrocities go uncheck has costs that can't just be counted in deaths. Not to mention that he was using oil for food funds to put into place stepped up WMD programs.

 

Please at least link to these other arguments. I've spent many ours going out and finding facts to back up my arguments in just this thead.

 

4) You keep mentioning random deaths around the world- maybe you missed the point. Our government did not kill those people, or send them to die. Our government DID declare war preemptively on Iraq, resulting in thousands of deaths, and an insurgancy sure to cause thousands more.

 

I argued the response to this above already. What about the 100s of thousands if not millions (depends who you believe) of Iraqi people who died

at the hands of Saddam's regime over the past 35 minus 2 years?

Inaction is just as deadly as action, in some instances.

[crazy280]

Mod Edit: some stuff deleted.

 

How you can respect the troops while opposing the war:

I was against going to war with Iraq. Not because I am anti-war. Not because I am a coward. But because I believe if you can avoid war, you should. If you can't avoid it, you can't avoid it, but if you can, you should. If this makes me a coward, I suppose Jesus Christ was also a coward? In the case of the Iraq war, it was avoidable, so I was against it. I was FOR the cause (at the time it was disarming Saddam and finding WMDs, then later it became freeing the people, both good causes), but I was against going to war to do so (we should have done it diplomatically, this has been said repeatedly already). But I can't stop the government and they went to war. When your country is at war, you would have to be an IDIOT to not want success in the mission, or your country would suffer the consequences. Again, it was a good cause, I just didn't want war, well now we were in war, nothing I could do about it, so of course I want success since it will bring a good cause about (if we didn't succeed it would be all for nothing, and there would be huge retaliation, who knows what?). So we need good people to fight for us, and it takes a brave man to go to war. I respect that, and I respect someone willing to die for their country, or someone else's freedom. That analogy of firefighters and cops, etc, does not apply.

 

In our case, the analogy would be more like this: if the fire is the war, and the firefighters are the soldiers, then there has to be someone who started the fire (whoever started the war). So I guess in the case of Iraq that would be our government. I opposed starting the fire, but since it is now blazing, I support the firefighters who put it out. When the war began, the soldiers followed orders and went to Iraq. Okay, they could have just disobeyed orders and not gone over there to begin fighting. But we had already declared war on Iraq, so if they did not go, we would have been attacked on our soil for declaring war. So either way, there would have been war, and they chose to do the honorable thing and go fight it. I can't say whether any particular soldier wanted to start the war or not, but I would disagree with them if they did, however it does not detract from their purpose in all of this. In the end we must blame our leaders.

[crazy280]

1) No way around it, this was a WAR. Unless you call a janitor "custodial engineer".

2) If, as you said, nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved more lives than it took, that would mean it was the less bloody route (which you said isn't always right?), but that's a whole 'nother debate. Saddam had no weapons, and no weapons programs in action. At the most all he had were plans to start programs in the future. The weapons inspections were going fine. Search the non-tech board for threads started by JohnC (he always gets these debates goin' good) or "Iraq War". Theres plenty, and I don't know how to link anyhow.

3) I never got an explanation for your mention of other random deaths. Our gov. didn't cause them, what relevance is that to my argument? I don't hear you complaining about the millions of people in Africa dying of the AIDS epidemic right now, so are you responsible for those millions of deaths, via "inaction"?

[johnc]

Time for a thread "Time Out."

 

I might re-open it in a few days...

 

OK, I'll open this thread back up. Thoughtful, respectful discussion please.

[johnc]

From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/international/middleeast/21haifa.html?ex=1269061200&en=3ad6a93f38ffdf34&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

 

In the first 18 months of the fighting, the insurgents mostly outmaneuvered the Americans along Haifa Street, showing they could carry the war to the capital's core with something approaching impunity.

 

But American officers say there have been signs that the tide may be shifting. On Haifa Street, at least, insurgents are attacking in smaller numbers, and with less intensity; mortar attacks into the Green Zone have diminished sharply; major raids have uncovered large weapons caches; and some rebel leaders have been arrested or killed.

 

American military engineers, frustrated elsewhere by insurgent attacks, are moving ahead along Haifa Street with a $20 million program to improve electricity, sewer and other utilities. So far, none of the work sites have been attacked, although a local Shiite leader who vocally supported the American projects was assassinated on his doorstep in January.

 

But the change American commanders see as more promising than any other here is the deployment of large numbers of Iraqi troops. American commanders are eager to shift the fighting in Iraq to the country's own troops, allowing American units to pull back from the cities and, eventually, to begin drawing down their 150,000 troops. Haifa Street has become an early test of that strategy.

 

Last month, an Iraqi brigade with two battalions garrisoned along Haifa Street became the first homegrown unit to take operational responsibility for any combat zone in Iraq. The two battalions can muster more than 2,000 soldiers, twice the size of the American cavalry battalion that has led most fighting along the street. So far, American officers say, the Iraqis have done well, withstanding insurgent attacks and conducting aggressive patrols and raids, without deserting in large numbers or hunkering down in their garrisons.

 

If Haifa Street is brought under control, it will be a major step toward restoring order in this city of five million, and will send a wider message: that the insurgents can be matched, and beaten back.

[JMortensen]

OK, then. No offense meant Crazy280. Another explanation of what I was trying to say before. If I really felt that our troops were doing something horrible, then I wouldn't support the troops. If for example, they were prosecuting a war against redheads and attacked Ireland for that reason, I would not say "I disapprove of the war, but I support the troops" because to do so would conflict with my morals. So I don't understand how someone's morals could allow them to disapprove of a war but approve of the soldiers who fight it. I understand being torn, or not knowing, or having reservations.

 

Also I find that little slips are made here and there and you find the anti-war crowd "accidentally" wishing harm towards our troops. The Daily Show is my favorite TV show, but about 2 weeks ago Jon Stewart had a lady on who had written a "Bush is the devil" book and when they were talking about the recent success in the Middle East and their despair at Bush's success, Jon said something to the effect of "Well we can still hold out hope for the insurgency in Iraq." He really did. That's the kind of thing that really gets me I guess.

[pparaska]

Mod Edit: some stuff deleted.

 

Hmm....

 

How you can respect the troops while opposing the war:

I was against going to war with Iraq. Not because I am anti-war. Not because I am a coward. But because I believe if you can avoid war' date=' you should. If you can't avoid it, you can't avoid it, but if you can, you should.If this makes me a coward, I suppose Jesus Christ was also a coward? In the case of the Iraq war, it was avoidable, so I was against it. I was FOR the cause (at the time it was disarming Saddam and finding WMDs, then later it became freeing the people, both good causes), but I was against going to war to do so (we should have done it [b']diplomatically[/b], this has been said repeatedly already). But I can't stop the government and they went to war. When your country is at war, you would have to be an IDIOT to not want success in the mission, or your country would suffer the consequences. Again, it was a good cause, I just didn't want war, well now we were in war, nothing I could do about it, so of course I want success since it will bring a good cause about (if we didn't succeed it would be all for nothing, and there would be huge retaliation, who knows what?). So we need good people to fight for us, and it takes a brave man to go to war. I respect that, and I respect someone willing to die for their country, or someone else's freedom. That analogy of firefighters and cops, etc, does not apply.

 

Uh, WE DID try to handle this diplomatically - Saddam foolishly played a game of bluff and lost, to the detriment of the people of Iraq and the Coalition. There's a point that some people just won't listen to diplomacy. Saddam is a great example.

 

Again, it was a good cause, I just didn't want war,

 

You CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. DIPLOMACY WAS EXHAUSTED - THERE WERE TWO CHOICES LEFT : The UN's pandering, and the Coalitions "war".

 

The problem I have with this kind of argument is this: Sometimes the use of armed forces is actually a means to an end that is a greater good. This pretty much defines the acceptable use of power, IMO. To try to always stay passive in all situations where diplomacy won't work (Think Hitler, Saddam twice now, Kadaffi) is to actually be more a part of the problem than the solution. It's like standing by while your neighbor beats his familyt to death. When the world's powerful countries put their collective heads in the sand and let huge human rights and/or WMD violations go unchecked, they are accomplices to the evil.

 

Does that mean that I condone just jumping in to every country that commits gross human rights violations or WMD programs? No. Diplomacy is a great tool and many times works. But with people like Saddam, forget it, you have to take him out to get rid of the evil.

 

Does it mean that I feel that the US and the rest of the world powers waited too long to take out Saddam's regime, so that 100s of thousands (if not the 1.3 million I've quoted elsewhere) of people wouldn't have been killed by it? YES. If the UN were worth ANYTHING they'd worry about gross human rights violations and WMD programs by countries bent on empire building (sorry, talking about Saddam's Iraq, not us), they'd make this their priority instead of standing in the way of a few of the superpowers to do something about it. That and getting food, medicine, other necessities to people in those countries.

 

But no, we get hand wringing about the casualties of this "war" that are mostly unavoidable once we make the decision to do something about Saddam. The US and the coalition has made it a priority to use humane tactics in first getting Saddam and his flunkies and army during the initial activities 2 years ago, and then in getting the insurgents, while trying to keep innocent civilian causualties to a minimum.

 

Do I hear any hand wringing about the 100000s of thousands or 1.3 million

dead at the hands of Saddam's regime? Hell no. All we hear in the press is the whining about the mostly UNAVOIDABLE deaths due to the coalition going in and trying to make Iraq a better place FOR IT'S PEOPLE.

 

If you ask me it's like being Cafeteria Christians. People whine and ring their hands and put up web sites about all the numerous people killed since we went into Iraq, but have nothing to say about the fact that we STOPPED a horrible dictator who killed many more than that before we got there. and a dictator that many times made it clear he was a horrible world citizen and one that wanted WMDs (and even used them on his countrymen).

 

Saying you condemn the war and not saying that what Saddam was doing to his country men was even worse is disingenious and self serving, IMO. Self serving to what - pacificism. Pure, blind pacificim, while 100s of thousands die because people are afraid to pick up a weapon to try to put a stop to an ongoing atrocity.

 

An yes, I think the UN is very derilict in their duties. The kind of thing going on in Iraq under Saddam is not unique. It's happened and is happening all over the world while the UN does next to nothing, because of the pacificists that run the show - blind pacificists that think war-like actions against thugs that run countries like they were the devil are worse than letting them continue.

 

If we were true people of a loving God or just believers in helping the just and innocent, we should be beating our breasts for the innocent victims in those other places instead of spewing hate for a few governments in this world that decided to flip off the ineffective UN and do something about Saddam.

 

We should be going to bed at night cussing the murderous dicatators of this world, not a president and his cabinet that are actually doing some good for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

JMO, obviously.

[pparaska]

1) No way around it, this was a WAR. Unless you call a janitor "custodial engineer".

 

It's the use of military power. I won't argue the semantics - it's pointless. What I was trying to point out was it's not conventional war, that brings about visions of wanton violence against entire cities, etc., like WWII. This action is more like a police action against a bunch of thugs in the streets.

 

2) If, as you said, nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved more lives than it took, that would mean it was the less bloody route (which you said isn't always right?), but that's a whole 'nother debate. Saddam had no weapons, and no weapons programs in action. At the most all he had were plans to start programs in the future. The weapons inspections were going fine.

 

Were they? The inspectors were constantly delayed once they were allowed back in, causing suspicion. And they were not allowed for years before that, again causing suspicion as to how and where WMD stuff could be hidden. Yes, even hidden outside of the country. Do I know this for a fact? No. Is it even a simply plausible reason we found none when we did get there?

 

Saddam played a game of bluff here, to his detriment.

 

Search the non-tech board for threads started by JohnC (he always gets these debates goin' good) or "Iraq War". Theres plenty, and I don't know how to link anyhow.

 

?????

How? Find the thread, copy the URL of the page to the paste buffer, paste the URL in between [ url] and [ /url] tags (no space after the [ ).

 

3) I never got an explanation for your mention of other random deaths. Our gov. didn't cause them, what relevance is that to my argument? I don't hear you complaining about the millions of people in Africa dying of the AIDS epidemic right now, so are you responsible for those millions of deaths, via "inaction"?

 

Random deaths are just as important as the ones that "our government caused", IMO. And yes, we are responsible for letting deaths occur around the world, if we have the power to not let them happen. It's our duty as decent human beings to help our fellow human beings. Which gets back to my rant about how we and the rest of the world are complicit in letting Saddam's regime kill 100s of thousands if not the 1.3 million I've seen quoted (see above in this thread).

 

"I'll have the stop-the-war jello, but leave the let's stop the murderous dictator dish off my tray please."

[crazy280]

Sounds like you guys have a personal vendetta with the "anti-war" movement, but you have GOT to stop confusing me with an anti-war activist or a pacifist. I'm not afraid to whoop some @ss- IF necessary. Sorry if I lost my temper earlier. Politics and religion (inextricably linked forever) are subjects I am very passionate about (probably the same for everyone reading this), and it can be hard to accept others' views.

 

JMortensen,

Its okay, I'm over it; we all got worked up about it. I know what you mean (about your John Stewart reference), it also frustrates me that people would not want success in Iraq at this point. The whole deal with honoring the troops is that I'm not fundamentally against the idea of war as long as its a last resort, so I don't disagree with the need for soldiers, or those who choose to be one. If I found it necessary I would enlist myself (but never under the leadership of Bush, lol). Like I said, the only ones to blame are the leaders. Some people can't understand that perspective (like the soldier who wrote that piece of trash you quoted) and consequently they get pretty pissed. I would too if I thought someone was bad-mouthing me.

 

Pparaska,

I don't disagree with much of what you are trying to say. I think it all comes down to one difference though - I never saw any evidence proving that war was the only option left open for us to solve the situation in Iraq. Obviously you thought it was the only option, and I don't doubt it has to do with your party affiliation, and you taking the Administrations' word for it, just like Congress did. Fair enough. However, Hans Blix (sp?) gave an interview shortly after the war broke out, talking alot about how the inspectors were having a hard time in years past, but were beginning to make progress in the months/years before the war. He said if they were given just a few more months they could have gathered the evidence they needed to show that there were no weapons/weapons programs (which we eventually found out the hard way anyhow). This Administration did exactly what every other Administration would have done: make excuses until the evidence is too great against them, then change their mind, justifying the war as freeing the Iraqis. Great, they needed to be freed anyhow. But like you said so yourself, we could have used covert action to drop Saddam's regime and avoid most of this mess. If you justify going to war in this case, and you blame anyone who would have been "inactive", then you cannot justify NOT going to war with every other country/situation similar to Iraq in the world at this very moment. You would be contradicting yourself. For example, Iran actually DOES have WMD's, and a weapons program, DOES sponsor terror openly (including AL QUAIDA), and IS a perpetrator of human rights violations. So shouldn't you gear-up and go fight Iran? What about North Korea? What about the slaughter in Sudan? What about Fidel Castro? What about the AIDS epidemic? What about Gaza Strip? etc, etc, etc.....

 

In my oppinion, we should have stuck to the original plan and focused on BIN LADEN, who murdered 3000 of our people, not to mention the countless other acts of terror his group is responsible for. I don't buy for one second that we are as devoted to finding him as we could be when 400 billion dollars and *how many* troops are going to Iraq becuase of the insurgency we excited. I think Al Quaida was/is slightly more of a priority than Iraq, since they actually attacked us. I am in no way invalidating the lives we saved in Iraq by removing Saddam, the Iraqi people are just as important as anyone else. You keep acting as though I don't care about the murders Saddam's regime committed (even though I keep mentioning them). These were horrible attrocities, and needed to be stopped. However, Saddam's threat to the world was not as great as Al Quaida (remember: no weapons). We could have made Bin Laden an example of how we deal with terrorists, and then moved on to Saddam. To this day Al Quaida has still been active, and that outrages me just as much as when Saddam was in power. But I don't hear any Republicans speaking out about it.

 

The thing is, I understand that this is a complex world, and that sacrifices must be made, just as Christ gave his life for our sins. Even though its hard to accept, I also know that in some cases, war is the only thing that can save lives in the long run. But I also know that some people in this world are very gung-ho and make brash decisions to go to war, leading to inevitable loss of life, such as this current war started by our government. Notice I said "government". I'm not just blaming GWB (even though I can't stand him), I'm blaming all the leaders who voted for the war, Republican and Democrat alike. Now that we're there, all I can hope is that the new Iraqi government will keep getting stronger, and we can slowly withdraw our troops in place of their own, so they are standing on their own two feet, allowing us to go find Al Quaida with full force. I'm praying for success in Iraq, but I still despise the leadership in Washington.

[Michael]

I am disappointed that so many persons, on this site and elsewhere, who until recently were quite skeptical of Bush’s motives, methods and “visionâ€, have come to embrace his decisions as either the lesser of various competing evils, or as outright the best decisions. I still believe that Bush’s messianic zeal is more extreme, more naïve and ultimately more dangerous than that of any president in modern history, and his failure to discern shades of gray is the perfect mirror for absolutists that we today find amongst our enemies. To paraphrase Reagan: are we safer now than we were four years ago? Is the world more stable, or for that matter, more free? Is the Middle East more stable or more free? I do hope that the Iraqis will see better times ahead, that our troops can return with the pride of a mission truly accomplished. But I worry that far from confronting the proverbial evil, we have only contributed to its redistribution and entrenchment.

[crazy280]

amen, brother

[Mikelly]

Again, personal views here, and NOT representative of anything otherwise... Only personal views...

 

Those pollyanna views of how this mess would get "Fixed" in a four year term are insulting and unrealistic... YOUR congress and YOUR senate voted without fail (except for Kennedy and Dean) for a war in which this president spelled out in PLAIN ENGLISH for all to hear and read... this war would not be won in days, weeks, or even months...

 

You people have such short memories, and the sad footnote is that you represent a large populous in America... I'd love to pull out of the middle east, as I've said many many times... And CLOSE OFF the FRIGGIN' Borders... Maybe then everyone would shut the hell up... Oh but wait, no, that wouldn't work either... Because in this pollyanna view on life, everyone would want free border access for all, and in this pollyanna life No bad people hijack planes and fly them into buildings on united states soil, or plan to attack the united states through terrorist means...

 

I don't know what the right answer is... Maybe Bush made one hell of a mess of things... But one thing is for certain... He is the first president we have had in a long friggin' time who has had a back bone and not buckled under political strain to not "DO THE RIGHT THING". He didn't run and stick head in sand and ask for UN guidance/ hand ringing. Obviously the American people thought enough of this one subject alone to KEEP this president employed for another 3.5 years. Get over it. Starting to sound like a bunch of Yankee fans... NEWS FLASH THE BOSTON REDSOX WON THE PENAT and BUSH WON the election... WOW... Such sore losers... Man oh man... get over it. You'll get another chance...

 

I'd vote for him again because he friggin' KILLS bad guys... PERIOD! If a few un-intended casualties get caught in the mix... Oh well, it is the price of war and peace. Don't have the stomach for it? You have a couple of choices... I hear Canada is having a boon on realistate, and I'm sure the French would take those who so much HATE our way of life... The other is to wait three years and campaign your asses off (And michael maybe spend some of that seven figure fortune you're sitting on) and get YOUR candidate elected...

 

But believe me and take this one to the bank... When YOUR candidate is in the hot seat, He or SHE isn't going to turn this mess around any quicker, and based on the recent past 12 years, we won't see justice, but lots more hand ringing...

 

Crazy280, quick question for you...

 

Weapons inspections... HMmmmm... KNow any of the inspectors PERSONALLY? No? OK... SOOOO you got your info on what was and was not the situation with inspections from who? And when? Are we talking about the inspections of 1994-1998? 1999- 2001? Or are we talking about that last feable round of shell gaming Saddam tried??? You only know what has been reported in the press, and not the fact that MANY of the inspectors disagreed with Blix and the UN. Lots of folks complained about how the final report went down, but no one saw it for the politcal tool it was.

 

Real simple... I'll make this real simple... Plain E-N-G-L-I-S-H for everyone here... We gave Saddam (Through the UNITED NATIONS, no less) over 712 chances to OPEN HIS VARIOUS SITES and let us INSPECT them in an EIGHT year period... He changed locations, denied accesses, restricted accesses, and did everything in his power, INCLUDING threatening detention of the inspectors themselves repeatedly from 1994 until 2000.... DID YOU FORGET THAT A CONDITION OF HIS SURRENDER THE FIRST TIME was an agreement TO INSPECTIONS of SITES WE CHOSE? He didn't make the list of sites up... THE UN did... That would be the SAME UNITED NATIONS that members agreed that there was STRONG intelligence to prove that he DID have these programs in FULL SWING...

 

Sooooo lets take it a step further here... Supposing that a terrorist organization that you, Mr. Hussein had knowledge of has struck the United States and YOU Mr. Hussein KNEW that you are already on their (United States) poop list... Don't suppose you'd be trying to get your house in order so you could plead your case to the world of public opinion... And afterall That stupid George Bush gave SOOOOO MANY public warnings months before the initial attacks... MONTHS... Silly boy...

 

What happened in Iraq could be likened to a drug bust in a nice neighborhood where the occupants get a tip that the fuzz is in route... Every comode in the house gets worked furiously to get rid of the substances in question... Saddam's toilet bowls were Syria, Turkey and Iraq...

 

Believe what you will, and come up with whatever excuses for why George Bush should burn in hell, but Saddam Hussein played his cards... May he rott in hell...

Mike

[Guest Phil1934]

You only need to wait two years. Elect a majority Democratic house which controls the judiciary committee, and they will take care of it. Okay, I'll take my tongue out of my cheek a minute to get serious. Everyone has discussed that allowing torture opens up other countries to do the same. What about starting a war with no repercussions? I figured Iran or N. Korea would heat up first. We did maneuvers in S. Korea last week while N. Korea announced they knew this was a prelude to invasion and were prepared to use nukes. But it looks like the greatest threat for a clash is going to be China. They passed a law last week saying they would militarily claim Taiwan if they attempt to secede. Taiwan has enjoyed our protection. If we interfere, would China dump the 1/4 trillion dollars in US bonds it holds? We have weakened ourselves both militarily and economically to the point other nations are thinking they can get away with some actions of their own. I said a couple years ago Carter had publicly stated Bush had undone 20 years of diplomatic negotiations. Let's see where it takes us.

[Pop N Wood]

We did maneuvers in S. Korea last week while N. Korea announced they knew this was a prelude to invasion and were prepared to use nukes.

 

You don't read the papers much. We have been doing "maneuvers" in Korea for the last 60 years. I even received a "medal" of sorts for participating in them 20 some years ago now. The week before our ship pulled into Pusan harbor they shot up a team of North Korea divers they caught trying to infiltrate the harbor. Had to post armed Marines around the ship checking the water for bubbles.

 

Same old same old.

[Mikelly]

Thanks Pop... You stole my thunder...

 

This again shows how manipulated we as a people are by our media...

 

They want you to believe we are on the brink... I've been reading media BS about CHINA for the last 18 years... Much like santa claus and the tooth fairy, I'm still waiting to see what happens...

 

Mike

[johnc]

He said if they were given just a few more months they could have gathered the evidence they needed to show that there were no weapons/weapons programs (which we eventually found out the hard way anyhow). This Administration did exactly what every other Administration would have done: make excuses until the evidence is too great against them, then change their mind, justifying the war as freeing the Iraqis.

 

Again, please read HJ RES 114 for the reasons Congress and the President went to war with Iraq: http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

 

And also note the date of the resolution: 10/10/2002. The US worked with the UN and the weapons inspectors for 6 months AFETR getting authority from Congress to invade.

 

But it looks like the greatest threat for a clash is going to be China. They passed a law last week saying they would militarily claim Taiwan if they attempt to secede.

 

China has passed dozens, maybe even hundreds, of similar laws/resolutions in the last 50 years. Look at China's actions, not what they say. The closest China came to invading Taiwan (Formosa at the time) was from August 1954 to May 1955 when China shelled the disputed island of Quemoy. This was after the US removed its blockade of Taiwan (yes, OUR blockade of Taiwan) which was preventing a planned invasion of mainland China by Chiang Kai-shek.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/quemoy_matsu.htm

 

We are not close to a similar situation.

 

If we interfere, would China dump the 1/4 trillion dollars in US bonds it holds?

 

Doubtful. That would immediately harm China's economy significantly more then it would immediately harm ours. Those bonds would have to be sold at a huge discount (imagin how cheap the bonds would become if 1/4 trillion hit the market at once). It would have a long term impact on the future sale of US bonds, but that impact can be spread out over time. The impact on China's economy would be immediate.

 

We have weakened ourselves both militarily and economically to the point other nations are thinking they can get away with some actions of their own.

 

Huh? You say that as if we are the world's cops and other countries are doing criminal acts on our beat. I KNOW that's not how you think How are we weak militarily and economically? What previous administration or era are we weak in comparison to?

 

I said a couple years ago Carter had publicly stated Bush had undone 20 years of diplomatic negotiations. Let's see where it takes us.

 

And I say anytime our adiminstration's foriegn policy pisses off Jimmy "Hugo Chavez is not a dictator" Carter we must be doing things right.

[Mikelly]

Bravo John C... BRAVO!!!!!

 

 

Mike