I believe a major opportunity was recently missed towards potentially settling this issue in a constructive and relatively peaceful manner.
Instead of rallying for “peace” the people and nations of the world could have banded together in a powerful demonstration of solidarity in demanding that Saddam Hussein immediately come clean and obey fully the United Nations resolutions. A united front in this regard would have served the peace seekers much better. By demonstrating for “peace” with Iraq they have unwittingly given a respect and legitimacy to the Iraqui regime which far exceeds that which that country has shown the United Nations.
If there were any in Saddam’s regime who were harboring any previous inclination to place a bullet through his head or send him packing, thinking he was leading their country down the path of disdain and world-wide alienation, they probably are having serious second thoughts now. They may, unfortunately, be instead echoing Sally Fields’ as they ponder wondrously to themselves, “You, the world, really like us. You really, really like us! Wow! Our foreign minister had an private audience with the Pope and a Papal envoy is sent to meet with Saddam, You really like him , you really, really like him!”.
The frogs military training consists of incredibly detailed and rigorous training in the art of surrender. All this time... we just thought they were signalling "touchdown."
I must admit that during an SAP installation we had a frog PM that I immediately learned to hate. I found this dislike extending to the country in general. Now - I find out I was just ahead of the curve. Bwaaaah!
Tough call. I say we trust our President! He will do what he has to do for our country and the good of the world. We need to support our troops, and the troop who have joined with us and stop the BS. The protestors are exactally what the terrorist want.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
So many things led to 9/11. The event broke "our" shield of invincibility. Now "we" were vulnerable, like the rest of the world. First things first: the perpetrators had to be "contained." Did "we" do so? That is rather doubtful, and the "paranoid" US leadership is seeking to root out the problem, now that Afghanistan has been "liberated." Target: IRAQ.
Little Saddam and his minions are still rattling their little sabres-i.e., "weapons of mass destruction" (uh, where's the beef?). More importantly, maybe he IS sponsoring Al Qaeda that still has operatives everywhere-even right here in America. What are you going to do, GW, bomb the world? And the world IS scared. No one wants war, but GW and the gang are hell-bent to elimitate the old Bush Jr-Sr bugaboo once and for all, and they SEEM to have a legitimate excuse...or do they?
Yes, the US must be defended. But we need to look at the bigger picture. The US has had its way in the world for so long. "We" were looked upon as the moral and economic leaders. But now that position is slipping rapidly, and all-out war is not the answer.
Here are some suggestions from someone who spent 4 years in peace time navy ('81-5) and has dealt with bipolar and other illnesses for quite some time. I also draw social security and VA disability, so I don't want to be a hypocritical anti-American. I know how blessed I am, despite my "challenges:"
1) I believe Colin Powell is Bush's "yes-man." This is GW's gig. There should be a meeting of NATO in Washington so that the "powers" that be (including France and Germany) can lay it out on the line. Classified material (if there is any) regarding Iraq should be promulgated. Applied forces if necessary need to target specific areas and authorize assassinations-yes, Saddam, Bin Laden, etc-against those who pose a lethal threat. I fear that if GW pulls the trigger unilaterally, he will make all of us targets.
2) Intelligence gathering must be improved. Light attack units must be stationed near hot spots-and that includes here in the US. No one wants to see another 9-11, but an defensive, not an offensive, tack must be taken.
3) Don't forget Pyongyang. What do we do here? This stand-off has gone on for years. Open communications. Increase forward deployment in Yokosuka and Narita. The closing of Subic Bay PI-now a hot-bed of Islamic Extremism and Al Qaeda activity-has now been shown to be a mistake. Huge budget deficits are now needed to build up military shortchanged by Clinton. It's the 89's all over again. Narrowmindedness costs big bucks. What we need now is enlightened leadership-and we're not getting it.
Well, that's enough blah-blah for now. No, I don't watch CNN-but I do travel to Europe. I'm no expert, but I love to talk!
If you know anything about Colin Powell you'd know he's nobodies yes man.
War was declared on all terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them shortly after 9/11. Saddam is a terrorist. He terrorizes his own people, he terrorized the Kuwaitis and I'm convinced that given the opportunity this murdering thug wouldn't think twice about giving WMD to other terrorist.
For those reasons and the fact that he has commited numerous violations of U.N. sanctions and the 1991 surrender agreement we need no additonal justification to remove him from power.
The start of the war will not be when troops enter Iraq. The war began on 9/11. Shortly after the events of 9/11 the President informed us that the war would be a long and costly. Nothing has changed since then. Some people want to revert back to the time before 9/11. Unfortunately (and as a father and grandfather I say this with a lot of sorrow) those days are over. War entails death, danger, pain and destruction. There are people in this country who may already have chemical, biological and radiologic weapons waiting for a prime opportunity to use them and kill as many Americans as the can in the process. Every American needs to acknowledge the very high probability that we are going to be attacked again on the scale of 9/11 (or even greater). This is the reality whether we go into Iraq or not.
In my opinion we should do all we can do to destroy as many of these weapons and kill as many terrorist as we can before they have an opportunity to bring this nasty stuff within our borders. A strong stance against Iraq may serve as an example to other terrorist regimes and terrorist organizations that there will be a very serious price to pay for targeting or attempting to target American civilians. We can't adopt the same course of action in dealing with every terrorist regime. How we deal with terrorist has to be customized to the particular situation.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
..........i can still see all the dead children laying in the streets from when he dropped nerve gas on them......... and no one said anything.............where the hell was the united nations then!!!.......to those who march in the streets and support saddam........get the hell out, and go live in iraq........to france, they always were two face, they would be speaking german if not for us.........to germany, these are the people who gave the world hilter and his gas chambers, enough said. saddams own mother tried to kill him when he was a baby, she said he was evil. smart woman..............attack iraq ? ........try and save the ones who are with out fault........the old, the sick, the children, and families............to those who are, and support saddam.......kill them all! and my message to saddam...........may a caravan of infected flees nest in your arm pits...........may a caravan of camels with infected boils dripping with pus defacate in the garden where your food grows......and its not if we get you, its when!............
Great post, ricardouno, And great, lively discussion, everyone. A lot more of you folks ought to hang out over at the Open Forum, where we (once in a while, here and there) get worthwhile debates going.
There's nothing like certainty to treat terrifying uncertainty, such as we are faced with now.
9/11 made it clear that people do exist in the world who are determined and committed to killing as many westerners or people inclined toward western ideas as possible, under whatever circumstance, apparently for reasons and with goals that are impossible to accommodate (i.e. the establishment of some kid of world-wide Islamic theocracy).
We have Saddam, who has used chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds, who viciously represses his people with Stalinist whimsy, and who wantonly devastates a neigbor even in defeat. He has tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past, and has hidden or not accounted for significant stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, either though it has cost his country a ruinous 12-years of sanctions in order for him to preserve his options for doing so. This man is astride the Islamic middle east, and has let it be know that he views himself as some neo-Saladin, who will go down in history as some kind of a hero.
Why is it unreasonable to presume that since terrorists with manifestly killing intent now populate the region, Saddam would not provide them at some point that meets his purposes, with the wherewithal to perform massive terrorist attacks in the west?
The casus bellihas always been clear: he remains in violation of the cease fire agreement and subsequent UN resolutions. The reasoning to enforce them now has to do with terrorism.
That's the argument, as I understand it.
It seems to me that pressure was building exquisitely and relentlessly on Saddam, and that he was running out of oxygen. Other countries interested in heading off too big of a power move by the US in the region then were providing Saddam an exile trap door. All of that, it seems to be, was scuttled by France and Germany, whose motives remain unclear, but whose actions paradoxically make a war the more likely, since Saddam is likely tempted now back into his usual strategies. It has also unleashed a crescendo of anti-war activism here and abroad, that is its own emotional tidal force.
We desperately need international support for the aftermath in Iraq, and for a UN (rather than the less credible US) support for the new Iraq government. I'm worried now, though, that we will have to go it alone, and that we'll have to do it sooner than later before all international support erodes.
Mrkelso, my prayers will be with you. God bless you and all our Armed forces! and God bless America. Help her to find her way back home. Help her to show others the Greatness of Freedom by example, NOT aggresion.
If you give up your rights, in order to maintain your freedom. You will most likely end up losing both!
It was not without some degree of humor that I recall listening to George H.W. Bush refer to Hussein as "SAAAAADUM" (phonetic) which in Farsi means "little boy" - of course he did that on purpose. Some folks just thought he didn't know how to pronounce the name. He knew very well...
So will this chime the death-knell for the UN? Maybe. But look at the bright side. The term "Novus Ordo Seclorum" gets to wait a bit longer if that's the case. There's no downside to that.
The big question in my mind is this... Why - since we have some of the finest special ops folks on earth, can't we just snuff this whack-job is beyond me. A couple of SEAL teams would do nicely. Yes, yes... I know. It's not considered "good form" to whack the "leader" of another country. We must instead bomb the Sh*t out of it, occupy it, and rebuild it. Seems like a single round from a Barrett M82-A1 at 1000 yards would save us alot of trouble.
<< <i>Each chicken hawk should go to Iraq and be ordered to kill a child with a knife - its no different than dropping a bomb on them >>
This is the "voice of reason?"
Nope - I'm afraid I disagree. This is someone who listens to liberal media.
The suggestion that our forces would intentionally drop bombs on children begs an invitation to go live elsewhere. We don't, never have, and never will do that.
I really never have weighed in with anyone re my thoughts on this, or on any post 9/11 matter. I will try and avoid world political ****. As far as I am concerned, politics in general is a waste of time, energy and resources. I am not going to engage in any personal attacks or insult anyone who has posted to this thread. I hope I don't ramble too much.
In late spring, 1973, I took my first international flight and landed in Athens, Greece. The next day, a terrorist blew up a jet with all passengers aboard on a runway in the Athens airport. I was freaked about this, and after some thought, made the decision that I was going to continue travelling. I also realized that if a plane could be blown up with all aboard in Athens, it could happen in my country. I quietly hoped and prayed that it would not ever happen, or at a minimum, at least it wouldn't happen during my lifetime.
The morning of 9/11, I was in Pomorode, Santa Catarina, Brasil. My memory of the scenic, transplanted German town will forever be clouded by the horrible images I saw that day. As I was in Brasil for the next three weeks, I processed the events on my own. Yes, it was the lead story in the local news, but the media did not put it in your face 24/7, as I imagine they did here in the U.S.
In terms of what to do with Saddam Hussein, again, I have a different perspective. I am a Spanish speaker, was in Spain under Franco, in Pinochet's Chile and Paraguay, and had a rifle pointed at me when I was in Buenos Aires when the generals were in charge.
One thing which is clear to me is that anyone who can run a country for twenty years or longer might be a verdade gordinho asqueroso, but that is one intelligent individual. While Saddam Hussein is certainly an evil man, don't kid yourself; he's a very clever evil man, and he knows how to work the system.
He is shrewd enough not to do anything overt enough which can be linked to a potential threat to the United States. If you are using this as a criterion as to whether or not we should go over there, we'll never go.
He had over four years to hide anything which can be used against him. It is clear that his accounting for any and all weapons of mass destruction has been unsatisfactory. Where are they? These items do not expire like perishable foodstuffs. He has taken the oil money allotted to him by the U.N., starved his people, and has built palaces, and done who knows what with the rest.
Could it be that he has hired some former Russian scientists who used to be involved with the germ warfare and nuclear programs of the Soviets during the Cold War? Kadir Hamsa, the former Iraqi chief of their nuclear arms program who has since defected, has publically stated in the affirmative.
Bill Tierney, who was one of the U.N. Inspectors who were kicked out in 1998, has publically stated that the French inspectors were constantly tipping the Iraqis off as to where and when the Inspectors were going. It got so bad that in 1998, they had one set of instructions which was for general use (that the French would know about and leak) and another set which was kept secret. Just before they were kicked out, the French were not able to warn the Iraqis in time, and the Inspectors were finding something 'big.' Then they were kicked out.
For some reason, Scott Ritter, who was an inspector with Bill Tierney, believes that we should continue with the current U.N. inspections, while Tierney thinks they are a charade. I would love to see a debate between the two of them.
Hans Blix, a lawyer and diplomat with no background in weaponry, is in charge of these inspections. The individual (whose name escapes me) who was in charge before 1998 had a background in weaponry. There were 6,000 inspectors before they were kicked out in 1998, and there may be 1/10 as many now. Do you really think these people are going to find anything?
Hussein, being nobody's fool, has probably either hid all of these facilities underground, or more than likely, has sent them out of Iraq. There are plenty of countries in the region that are sympathetic to Islamic terrorists who aren't on our "A list" and would gladly, albeit quietly, offer Mr. Hussein aid in this regard. The north of Lebanon, which is controlled by Syria, comes to mind.
No one seems to remember that the Israelis took out Saddam Hussein's French-built nuclear reactor shortly before it went "on line" in 1981. Could you imagine what he would have done if the Israeli's did not act at that time? Keep in mind that Iraq, in its war with Iran, was the first nation to use chemical warfare in battle since Mussolini's army did so in Ethiopia in 1936.
The bottom line here is that if you do not believe Saddam Hussein will develop / refine and export weapons of mass destruction, then you are perfectly justified in believing we have no business going to war with Mr. Hussein's regime.
My biggest concern is that he will take the horrific weapons he has or will shortly make, and eventually sell them to the highest bidder, namely Al Quaeda. This way, Al Quaeda can inflict harm on the United States and there would not be any direct link to Saddam Hussein.
Are you willing to take this chance? Personally, I am not. For this reason, I believe we need to take this guy out.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>The suggestion that our forces would intentionally drop bombs on children begs an invitation to go live elsewhere. >>
To suggest that this was the implication of my post would be ludicrous, if it weren't so pathetic. But then, there is apparently no limit to the mud that some will sling - is that because slinging mud is easier than thinking, or even reading? Twist the words, bend the truth, it's an old game that been played all too often before.
And please stop the liberal media nonsense - that form of name calling is getting so....... old. Since you don't have the communist to pick on any more, throw your mud by calling folks liberal. Well, I for one, am a conservative, in the tradition of Barry Goldwater, not one of those phony neo-conservatives who have no idea what conservative ideals (read ideals Sir, not ideas) really are. But then Goldwater was too much of an Man to resort to namecalling, mudsliging, character assassination, and total lack of respect for those who held different points of view - nor was he a puppet of large corporate interests - Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower - they were real conservatives and real men - they understood how serious war is. Now, unfortunately, there are too many pubescent 30, 40 and 50 year old boys wanting to play war - and calling themselves conservatives - this too would be ludicrous, if it weren't so dangerous.
If it is our intent to take out Saddam and rest on our tails, NO. If this is just a first step toward taking out those that are pursuing a means to our demise, then yes. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc, etc.
For the most part, the world can't stand our success and way of life. Most would revel in seeing our destruction. We should scrap the United Nations, pull out of NATO, tell the various collectivist nations like France, Germany and most of Europe that we will be witdrawing our troops, closing our bases and discontinuing US funding. Continue economic trade with those nations that wish to play on a level field and tell those that don't to stuff it.
We have for many decades ignored the wisdom of our Founders and their masterpiece (Constitution).
The rapid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood of them ending up in the hands of irrational militant dictators or terrorists should be considered unacceptable by civilized people. This is not a time for Chamberlins, but rather for Churchills and visionaries.
The day we put our national security and interests in the hands of foreign diplomats like the United Nations, is the day we burn whatever tatters are left of our Constitution and liberty.
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Sorry I am late responding to this, but I was out watching "Daredevil." COOL MOVIE!!
Indeed, I was not going to respond further, having already laid out several replies, however, the below requires a response:
"US troops are already in Venezuela, and in Colombia, they are called advisors. The Generals of the Armies of both countries were trained in the US,at the College of the Americas, I believe in Florida. The generals were trained how to overthrow elected officials, put down ruthlessly opposition, and quash democratic uprisings, thereby allowing the US free reign of those governments by puppets. Some notable graduates, Pinochet of Chile and Noreiga of Panama.
TRUTH"
You are flat out wrong. I hope that you are just ignorant of the facts, if not, "truth teller" is the opposite of what we should label you.
FACT: There are no US advisors in Venezuela. There is a Presidential directive allowing for US troops to train Colombian security forces, but no such authority exists for Venezuela. Lumping Colombia with Venezuela seems like an easy leap, but it is a shell game with no validity. These two South American nations are totally different as is the attitudes of their leaders towards a US presence. President Uribe welcomes US aid, but President Chavez (and his military) would look with disfavor should US advisors turn up unannounced....translate that as they would "shoot at them."
FACT: The "College of the Americas" WAS the "School of the Americas"...notice I am using the PAST tense. It no longer exists because the Congress of the US recognized its failings and had it dismantled.
FACT: "Facts" are the enemy of arguments based upon "opinion." Both liberals and conservatives would do this country a service if they discussed issues using more facts and less "I think."
BOTTOM LINE: If you don't "know," study until you do "know." Then offer your informed opinion...It will hold more value if used sparingly and wisely.
"You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68." rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
So your saying my only error is in stating that I didn't use past tense for School of the Americas? Well then, the rest of my argument stands unchallenged? Kudos for me.
The comments and responses here in this forum are probably a reflection of the comments made by most people thru out the country. Most people are silently supporting the government others are actively rally against it. This is how a democratic society should function, open disagreement and discussion.
A few thoughts…. America is an easy target; we are loved, envied and hated around the world. We are one of the richest nations in the world and we enjoy almost unlimited freedoms. Generally we are well educated and well informed. Most of us live a decent life and have plenty of food, shelter, we worship our choice of religions and have the right to freedom of speech.. Our country is prosperous and foremost very open. We protect the right of those who illegally enter this country and give them the protection afforded to its citizens. Ask yourself how many other places to that?
We were once fortress America, an island protected from the rest of the world’s problems. However 9/11 put an end to that. Yes over the years we have cuddled up with the wrong people, they became friends because we drew a big line in the sand, those who wanted democracy and those who wanted communism. Our allies over time made for some strange bedfellows. Where those decisions right or wrong? They probably looked right at the time….but hindsight is a wonderful thing,
What are we dealing with today? Radical or fanatical religious groups who blame their problems on us. Young children who have seen nothing put poverty, have no future and are told they are that way because of America and the Jews. Children that can neither read nor write but can recite the Koran forwards and backwards; children who are preached that a better life is to die for Islam, kill the infidels, as they will be rewarded with peace and prosperity in heaven. This is an army that will be very difficult to stop and it scares the hell out of me. The dictators of the world love this as it focuses attention away from terrible leadership and pathetic excuses for how they run there countries, the lack of freedoms and the very basic necessities of existence are not provided.
We are being challenged. Our way of life and its future existences is on the table. Do we sit back and let the world political bodies tell us what to do? Will the world protect us? Who is our white night? Should we put a fence around America and live in fear that another attack can happen at any given notice. I do not want to live in fear; I don’t want my children or friends to live in fear.
If the world was perfect, there are no wars, poverty, and starvation. But the world isn’t perfect and there is evil in this world. Yes over the years we acted were we choose, some of it based on economics, religion, and race, some were bad choices others good. But we have to believe that our young country has done things right or we wouldn’t be were we are today.
Do I like war…no. If one person dies it pains me as much as 1,000,000. We Americans carry the torch of freedom and it is a heavy burden.
If this action gives pause to other dictators and despots in the world, that there is a price to pay for what they do so be it.
To all of you that go in harms way, may you be protected by the arms of a higher being.
Collector of all proofs 1950 and up plus mint and proof Ikes.
You say there are US advisors in Venezuela and there are NONE?? This is a gross error that you deliberately used to incite others.
Your comments on the School of the America's are 30 years out of date. Get out of your Vietnam mindset and realize the US has a 21st century military with 21st century ideas and doctrine.
You are blissfully unaware of how US military forces cooperate with, educate, and train many nations in Latin America. The critical aspect of all of this engagement is to support "democracy." For example, read the Department of State's official position on President Chavez....He is the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER of his country...we support democracies.....Did you know the curriculum of every school where foreign officers attend includes subordination of the military to civilian control?? Thought not.
Sadly, not all nations ARE democracies and we have to deal with their leaders as well....we may not like it, but that's our challenge.
"You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68." rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Your tone suggests you'd prefer a flame-war. You don't want to go there with me. You stated your opinion, I stated mine. You're wrong and I'm right - or I'm wrong and you're right. Who the hell cares? I'm virtually certain the Joint Chiefs are not basing their decisions on what is written here. It's a discussion.
If your suggestion is that the media has not a liberal bias - you are in my opinion... misinformed or terribly sequestered. If I have misinterpreted - I apologize for my evident low-browed mentality.
Perhaps you'd prefer to witness sorting body parts in Chicago, or mass graves in Philadelphia, or (fill-in-the-blank) Maybe watching a family member die of radiation exposure would change your mind. Then - maybe the story would be different. Wasn't 9/11 enough? It was for me.
Nothing is understood by despot whack-jobs than a "big stick." You may sling all the anti-male rhetoric you like, but you won't change that sad fact. Yes - testosterone poisoning runs rampant, but you need not attack every male on the planet to make your point. Remember the Soviet Union? Gone. Why? "Big damned stick" that's why. (plus the obvious fact that communism doesn't work)
Whether your attitude is liberal or not, your words are flaming. Hugging trees is great, and saving owls is wonderful - but things are just a wee bit more serious than that. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the painfully obvious.
Your point is noted. Mine is equally valid in a public discussion. Let's end this one while it's still relatively friendly shall we?
You're not the only one here who understands how "serious" war is. I was regular Army. And you? What branch of the service did you serve in?
May God bless the brave young men and women who will fight for the freedom of a people oppressed by a godless dictator who has murdered over a million OF HIS OWN COUNTRYMEN. Where are the tears and gnashing of teeth for those people? I'd bet a pointed-nine dime their relatives remember all too well. Those that are still alive. Yes Ma'am. War is serious. Sometimes it's necessary to achieve lasting peace. If there world were a perfect place, and men were perfect beings... there'd be no need for war. It isn't, they aren't, and ignoring reality won't make it go away.
Unfortunately, you don't know me. I have dozens of relatives in Venezuela today who will ABSOLUTELY disagree with you. Advisors sometimes look like ambassadors or US embassy officials, or are dressed as officials, but their goals are definitely one in the same. But understanding your US tainted perspective, I can't convince you that things are different than you may perceive.
"we support democracies", "subordination of the military to civilian control". I really had to chuckle on those points. Marcos, Samosa, Pinochet, Noriega, etc. are all smiling right now.
TT, "I hear on the radio all the time, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannety, Micheal Reagan, all they do is HATE, bring down, ridicule"
your comments about HATE radio failed to include 'left-wing commentators' like Jim Hightower, Juliane Malveaux (of "I hope [Clarence Thomas'] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease"), or Miami Florida's Neil Rogers whose comments about National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice included: "Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart?" and a song parody broadcast on Rogers' show included: "Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?"
As I said earlier, I was disgusted by TT's attempts to paint Americans as being the ones to blame because we happen to have some wealth and a good military, etc. Americans have worked hard and long to accomplish what we have and no-one has a right to take it away from us and certainly no-one has any right to attack our people.
Way to go baseball!
JJacks
Always buying music cards of artists I like! PSA or raw! Esp want PSA 10s 1991 Musicards Marx, Elton, Bryan Adams, etc. And 92/93 Country Gold AJ, Clint Black, Tim McGraw PSA 10s
I expected better than old 1960's warmonger statements. "Love it or leave it". Yeah, right! How truly unAmerican. If you don't like my comments, page down, close your eyes, keep on going. Unfortunately, you know I'm right, you just can't accept it! The idea of our country, right or wrong is stupid. The rights that we have include my right to say what I feel, and your right to not agree. Deep in your hearts, do you really want to have our country kill innocents in YOUR name? That's what it comes down to. Killing. We are wrong, my opinion, my right, and I'll damn well say it to you, in your face, right here, right now. Lose respect? I expect it, I demand it, because I know I am not here to please you.
The infrigement of our basic rights began in the Reagan administration, it's just accelerated with George W. to the degree where people are now begining to take notice. However, people are affraid to voice an opinion because we Americans love our cushy lifestyles and will do anything to maintain them, even at the price of liberties.
<< <i>Your HATE is filled with animosity toward the LEADER of OUR GREAT NATION, agree with him or not it is WRONG. If you HATE the President so much, if you hate our policies so much, if you think we are even remotely compararable to Nazi Germany, then go Fuc!n MOVE TO IRAQ. >>
Funny how one can spout off about this how great this nation is and it's ideals but yet at the same we can tell people who disagree with our opinions "to live somewhere else". Hypocracy at it's best.
People have the right, as an American citizens, to disagree with our foreign policy and to disagree with "our great leader" (your words NOT mine) and have the right to disagree with YOU without being called a "hate monger" or "commie" or other such non-sense.
Fratt: I've still never gotten a straight answer to ANY of those questions. Here are a couple more:
1) 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi's. Why did we attack Afganistan and completely ignore Saudi Arabia? OK, so Bin Laden was there. So? Last I checked he still around somewhere.
2) Speaking of unfinished business. What happened to the Anthrax scare? I still haven't heard where that came from?
3) I'd love to back the US idea of kicking Saddaaaam's %ss but it would be nice to actually have some evidence of their weapons. Again, I still haven't seen any.
It's no wonder I feel our Gov't is flailing around and not knowing what the hell it's doing. First Talaban, then Iraq, then N. Korea, then Iran....geeez, can we get some focus here?
We just see things very differently. I take a 'whole world' perspective. This country lives in a whole world, and it should see what is best for the 'whole world' not just for us. The foreign policy that this country maintains is for the protection and benefit of the USA, not the world. My perspective is the protection of the world, which includes the USA. We must be part of a bigger picture, not just what's between the borders. We maintain 7 world fleets, a military presence in no less than 10 nations around the world, and political as well as financial influence in a majority of the countries throughout the world. Why is this so? For our benefit only, not the world's benefit, just our 'interests'. Why would we as a country openly deal with China, which represents some of the worst human rights ever. In fact, China is one of our best trading partners. This sends a very bad signal to the world. Kill Iraqis, hug Chinese. And in the years to come, the Chinese will definitely be THE major force to contend with. We can't say Saddam is bad, while the Chinese are good. So I guess, next on the list will be North Korea, then Iran, then Libya, then France. Let's kill everyone so we can save them.
I remember like it was yesterday the day I went to see Pearl with my father. He got up and left the theatre when the footage of the attack started. He couldn't watch it. Since that day, I can't either. I understand his anger and sorrow. It is an easy thing to forget how expensive freedom is.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Sadam hasn't done anything in the last 10 years. He's just been hanging out being dictator minding his own business. He hasn't attacked us or any of his neighbors in the last decade.
So why does he have to go now?
Worst case is we go in, get gassed and we break out the tactical nukes. North Korea knows they're #2 on the list, so they ain't waiting around and overrun the border. Then we get to find if our military that was designed to win major wars on two seperate fronts will work or not. And while all this is going on Osama's buddies kick in. Poor Bush has to deal with the terror trifecta.
Perhaps the price of our SUV's may be much higher than $10 a gallon gas.
But with even a dove like Colin Powell beating the war drum, it won't be long.
Take our governments sage advice and stock up on that duct tape!
Adrian asked "...attack Iraq right now? in the title", and "...attack Iraq in the opening question?". I'll choose to answer the latter. If asked, I'd try to answer the former, which is a bit more delicate a question, as well. From Adian's initial post to this one, there have been a lot of images generated. I can't help but remember "taking in" the shoe display at Washington D.C.'s Holocaust Museum. If you have been there, you know what I mean by "taking in". With this in mind, I fear that war is appropriate.
<< <i>This thread is just simply amazing -- I left for a little while and now we're 3 pages deeper into this.
Just a couple of questions ( and please don't read into this )
1. When did Sadaam Hussein take credit for flying those planes into the WTC?
2. When has Sadaam Hussein attacked, threatened to attack or even seemed likely to attack the United States?
3. When was the last time George Bush mention Bin Laden's name in public (careful I have the answer to this one)
4. Is anyone else noticing the infringement on personal liberties in this country AND are you okay with it?
Michael >>
Michael- Regarding question#3. You can ASSUME you have the answer to that one. However, we all know that the networks do NOT make every speach available to the public. And they are very good at making sure that only comments that portray the picture they want to paint will make it to the people's airwaves.
Many people with views such as yours, want to bring the argument back to Bin Laden. What about Bin Laden? I too, wish we had been successful in extinguishing that fellow. However, I want to take you back to the first 2 or 3 days after the 9-11 attack, when the administration announced plans for our war against terrorism. If you will recall, President Bush, VP Dick Chaney, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and Sec. of State Collin Powell ALL said that we may never get Bin Laden. The attacks will be on Al Queda. We will kill and capture many of the members and we may never know the identity of all those we kill. We will destroy their physical facilities and put them on the run. However, he is only one man and the terrain is rough and mountainous. By putting them on the run, they will not be able to plan the logistics of additional attacks. Without training facilities, they will not be able to train replacement operatives.
Michael, we have DONE that!! No additional attacks on this country. They are on the run and cannot poke their heads up without having them blown off. Our war on Al Queda has been an overwhelming success! With the special forces following in small bands, it is only a matter of time before all the leaders of Al Queda are destroyed.
I don't know. Remember I wanted, at one time, to be a Monk. I detest all forms of violence, but I temper that with the knowledge that sometimes you must use deadly, overwhelming, force. We as a people never really know the whole story on many of our governments actions. Experience though, has shown me that a lot of what is passed into laws, actions, directives, etc., is usually ripe with special interest, greed, power over a competitor, aagghh. Do I fully trust our government? No, absolutely not. Do I want to kill Saddam, no. Do I want him controlled? Yes. It is also an Arab Problem, and I don't see too many Arabs in an uproar over Saddam. That is puzzling. Do I want him to hit us first before we act... thats a tough call. The Hitler comparison is poignant, and makes us want to hit him now. I can lay no real criticism on that kind of thinking. So all I am left with is I don't know what to think or believe. All I really know to do is practice my best understanding if what prayer might be, and hope that in the end, our leaders will do what is UNIVERSALLY good.
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
This world get smaller everyday, and we and our children have no where else to go!....The eyes of the world are on this man......He is surrounded by the mightiest army on earth. Our Spy planes are flying over his country every day, and inspectors are watching every move he makes. I'm not saying he doesn't have to be dealt with. He does without a doubt......but why the rush to a war where so many could be killed, to say nothing of the aftermath terror that we would surely bring upon ourselves without the rest of the world backing us up. I say keep the presure up....Keep the armies ready....Keep our eyes on him....Don't let him sell one more drop of oil for any reason (humanitarian or otherwise) until this crisis has been resolved...With our strength and a little patience this can be done without a war!
Travis
-------- Howdy from Houston...
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies Tongue tied and twisted Just an earthbound misfit, I
Comments
Instead of rallying for “peace” the people and nations of the world could have banded together in a powerful demonstration of solidarity in demanding that Saddam Hussein immediately come clean and obey fully the United Nations resolutions. A united front in this regard would have served the peace seekers much better. By demonstrating for “peace” with Iraq they have unwittingly given a respect and legitimacy to the Iraqui regime which far exceeds that which that country has shown the United Nations.
If there were any in Saddam’s regime who were harboring any previous inclination to place a bullet through his head or send him packing, thinking he was leading their country down the path of disdain and world-wide alienation, they probably are having serious second thoughts now. They may, unfortunately, be instead echoing Sally Fields’ as they ponder wondrously to themselves, “You, the world, really like us. You really, really like us! Wow! Our foreign minister had an private audience with the Pope and a Papal envoy is sent to meet with Saddam, You really like him , you really, really like him!”.
By the way. Did you hear the French have developed a new tank. It has 6 gears. Five in reverse.....
and 1 forward, just case they get attacked from the rear!
It's COMMON GROUND!
The frogs military training consists of incredibly detailed and rigorous training in the art of surrender.
All this time... we just thought they were signalling "touchdown."
I must admit that during an SAP installation we had a frog PM that I immediately learned to hate. I found this dislike extending to the country in general. Now - I find out I was just ahead of the curve. Bwaaaah!
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
<< <i>DCAM and DanC! How dare you two get along!!!!!!! >>
Always looking for a paddling.....
Couldn't help it. Getting ready to go out and couldn't resist the fun.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
So many things led to 9/11. The event broke "our" shield of invincibility. Now "we" were vulnerable, like the rest of the world.
First things first: the perpetrators had to be "contained." Did "we" do so? That is rather doubtful, and the "paranoid" US leadership
is seeking to root out the problem, now that Afghanistan has been "liberated." Target: IRAQ.
Little Saddam and his minions are still rattling their little sabres-i.e., "weapons of mass destruction" (uh, where's the beef?). More
importantly, maybe he IS sponsoring Al Qaeda that still has operatives everywhere-even right here in America. What are you going
to do, GW, bomb the world? And the world IS scared. No one wants war, but GW and the gang are hell-bent to elimitate the old Bush
Jr-Sr bugaboo once and for all, and they SEEM to have a legitimate excuse...or do they?
Yes, the US must be defended. But we need to look at the bigger picture. The US has had its way in the world for so long. "We" were
looked upon as the moral and economic leaders. But now that position is slipping rapidly, and all-out war is not the answer.
Here are some suggestions from someone who spent 4 years in peace time navy ('81-5) and has dealt with bipolar and other illnesses
for quite some time. I also draw social security and VA disability, so I don't want to be a hypocritical anti-American. I know how blessed I am, despite my "challenges:"
1) I believe Colin Powell is Bush's "yes-man." This is GW's gig. There should be a meeting of NATO in Washington so that the "powers" that be (including France and Germany) can lay it out on the line. Classified material (if there is any) regarding Iraq should be promulgated. Applied forces if necessary need to target specific areas and authorize assassinations-yes, Saddam, Bin Laden, etc-against
those who pose a lethal threat. I fear that if GW pulls the trigger unilaterally, he will make all of us targets.
2) Intelligence gathering must be improved. Light attack units must be stationed near hot spots-and that includes here in the US. No one wants to see another 9-11, but an defensive, not an offensive, tack must be taken.
3) Don't forget Pyongyang. What do we do here? This stand-off has gone on for years. Open communications. Increase forward deployment in Yokosuka and Narita. The closing of Subic Bay PI-now a hot-bed of Islamic Extremism and Al Qaeda activity-has now been shown to be a mistake. Huge budget deficits are now needed to build up military shortchanged by Clinton. It's the 89's all over again.
Narrowmindedness costs big bucks. What we need now is enlightened leadership-and we're not getting it.
Well, that's enough blah-blah for now. No, I don't watch CNN-but I do travel to Europe. I'm no expert, but I love to talk!
Take care and see you at Long Beach,
Barney
If you know anything about Colin Powell you'd know he's nobodies yes man.
War was declared on all terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them shortly after 9/11. Saddam is a terrorist. He terrorizes his own people, he terrorized the Kuwaitis and I'm convinced that given the opportunity this murdering thug wouldn't think twice about giving WMD to other terrorist.
For those reasons and the fact that he has commited numerous violations of U.N. sanctions and the 1991 surrender agreement we need no additonal justification to remove him from power.
The start of the war will not be when troops enter Iraq. The war began on 9/11. Shortly after the events of 9/11 the President informed us that the war would be a long and costly. Nothing has changed since then. Some people want to revert back to the time before 9/11. Unfortunately (and as a father and grandfather I say this with a lot of sorrow) those days are over. War entails death, danger, pain and destruction. There are people in this country who may already have chemical, biological and radiologic weapons waiting for a prime opportunity to use them and kill as many Americans as the can in the process. Every American needs to acknowledge the very high probability that we are going to be attacked again on the scale of 9/11 (or even greater). This is the reality whether we go into Iraq or not.
In my opinion we should do all we can do to destroy as many of these weapons and kill as many terrorist as we can before they have an opportunity to bring this nasty stuff within our borders. A strong stance against Iraq may serve as an example to other terrorist regimes and terrorist organizations that there will be a very serious price to pay for targeting or attempting to target American civilians. We can't adopt the same course of action in dealing with every terrorist regime. How we deal with terrorist has to be customized to the particular situation.
<< <i>Yes. >>
..........i can still see all the dead children laying in the streets from when he dropped nerve gas on them......... and no one said anything.............where the hell was the united nations then!!!.......to those who march in the streets and support saddam........get the hell out, and go live in iraq........to france, they always were two face, they would be speaking german if not for us.........to germany, these are the people who gave the world hilter and his gas chambers, enough said. saddams own mother tried to kill him when he was a baby, she said he was evil. smart woman..............attack iraq ? ........try and save the ones who are with out fault........the old, the sick, the children, and families............to those who are, and support saddam.......kill them all! and my message to saddam...........may a caravan of infected flees nest in your arm pits...........may a caravan of camels with infected boils dripping with pus defacate in the garden where your food grows......and its not if we get you, its when!............
There's nothing like certainty to treat terrifying uncertainty, such as we are faced with now.
9/11 made it clear that people do exist in the world who are determined and committed to killing as many westerners or people inclined toward western ideas as possible, under whatever circumstance, apparently for reasons and with goals that are impossible to accommodate (i.e. the establishment of some kid of world-wide Islamic theocracy).
We have Saddam, who has used chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds, who viciously represses his people with Stalinist whimsy, and who wantonly devastates a neigbor even in defeat. He has tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past, and has hidden or not accounted for significant stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, either though it has cost his country a ruinous 12-years of sanctions in order for him to preserve his options for doing so. This man is astride the Islamic middle east, and has let it be know that he views himself as some neo-Saladin, who will go down in history as some kind of a hero.
Why is it unreasonable to presume that since terrorists with manifestly killing intent now populate the region, Saddam would not provide them at some point that meets his purposes, with the wherewithal to perform massive terrorist attacks in the west?
The casus bellihas always been clear: he remains in violation of the cease fire agreement and subsequent UN resolutions. The reasoning to enforce them now has to do with terrorism.
That's the argument, as I understand it.
It seems to me that pressure was building exquisitely and relentlessly on Saddam, and that he was running out of oxygen. Other countries interested in heading off too big of a power move by the US in the region then were providing Saddam an exile trap door. All of that, it seems to be, was scuttled by France and Germany, whose motives remain unclear, but whose actions paradoxically make a war the more likely, since Saddam is likely tempted now back into his usual strategies. It has also unleashed a crescendo of anti-war activism here and abroad, that is its own emotional tidal force.
We desperately need international support for the aftermath in Iraq, and for a UN (rather than the less credible US) support for the new Iraq government. I'm worried now, though, that we will have to go it alone, and that we'll have to do it sooner than later before all international support erodes.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
So will this chime the death-knell for the UN? Maybe. But look at the bright side. The term "Novus Ordo Seclorum" gets to wait a bit longer if that's the case. There's no downside to that.
The big question in my mind is this... Why - since we have some of the finest special ops folks on earth, can't we just snuff this whack-job is beyond me. A couple of SEAL teams would do nicely. Yes, yes... I know. It's not considered "good form" to whack the "leader" of another country. We must instead bomb the Sh*t out of it, occupy it, and rebuild it. Seems like a single round from a Barrett M82-A1 at 1000 yards would save us alot of trouble.
<< <i>Each chicken hawk should go to Iraq and be ordered to kill a child with a knife - its no different than dropping a bomb on them >>
This is the "voice of reason?"
Nope - I'm afraid I disagree. This is someone who listens to liberal media.
The suggestion that our forces would intentionally drop bombs on children begs an invitation to go live elsewhere. We don't, never have, and never will do that.
Hogwash.
In late spring, 1973, I took my first international flight and landed in Athens, Greece. The next day, a terrorist blew up a jet with all passengers aboard on a runway in the Athens airport. I was freaked about this, and after some thought, made the decision that I was going to continue travelling. I also realized that if a plane could be blown up with all aboard in Athens, it could happen in my country. I quietly hoped and prayed that it would not ever happen, or at a minimum, at least it wouldn't happen during my lifetime.
The morning of 9/11, I was in Pomorode, Santa Catarina, Brasil. My memory of the scenic, transplanted German town will forever be clouded by the horrible images I saw that day. As I was in Brasil for the next three weeks, I processed the events on my own. Yes, it was the lead story in the local news, but the media did not put it in your face 24/7, as I imagine they did here in the U.S.
In terms of what to do with Saddam Hussein, again, I have a different perspective. I am a Spanish speaker, was in Spain under Franco, in Pinochet's Chile and Paraguay, and had a rifle pointed at me when I was in Buenos Aires when the generals were in charge.
One thing which is clear to me is that anyone who can run a country for twenty years or longer might be a verdade gordinho asqueroso,
but that is one intelligent individual. While Saddam Hussein is certainly an evil man, don't kid yourself; he's a very clever evil man, and he knows how to work the system.
He is shrewd enough not to do anything overt enough which can be linked to a potential threat to the United States. If you are using this as a criterion as to whether or not we should go over there, we'll never go.
He had over four years to hide anything which can be used against him. It is clear that his accounting for any and all weapons of mass destruction has been unsatisfactory. Where are they? These items do not expire like perishable foodstuffs. He has taken the oil money allotted to him by the U.N., starved his people, and has built palaces, and done who knows what with the rest.
Could it be that he has hired some former Russian scientists who used to be involved with the germ warfare and nuclear programs of the Soviets during the Cold War? Kadir Hamsa, the former Iraqi chief of their nuclear arms program who has since defected, has publically stated in the affirmative.
Bill Tierney, who was one of the U.N. Inspectors who were kicked out in 1998, has publically stated that the French inspectors were constantly tipping the Iraqis off as to where and when the Inspectors were going. It got so bad that in 1998, they had one set of instructions which was for general use (that the French would know about and leak) and another set which was kept secret. Just before they were kicked out, the French were not able to warn the Iraqis in time, and the Inspectors were finding something 'big.' Then they were kicked out.
For some reason, Scott Ritter, who was an inspector with Bill Tierney, believes that we should continue with the current U.N. inspections, while Tierney thinks they are a charade. I would love to see a debate between the two of them.
Hans Blix, a lawyer and diplomat with no background in weaponry, is in charge of these inspections. The individual (whose name escapes me) who was in charge before 1998 had a background in weaponry. There were 6,000 inspectors before they were kicked out in 1998, and there may be 1/10 as many now. Do you really think these people are going to find anything?
Hussein, being nobody's fool, has probably either hid all of these facilities underground, or more than likely, has sent them out of Iraq.
There are plenty of countries in the region that are sympathetic to Islamic terrorists who aren't on our "A list" and would gladly, albeit quietly, offer Mr. Hussein aid in this regard. The north of Lebanon, which is controlled by Syria, comes to mind.
No one seems to remember that the Israelis took out Saddam Hussein's French-built nuclear reactor shortly before it went "on line" in 1981. Could you imagine what he would have done if the Israeli's did not act at that time? Keep in mind that Iraq, in its war with Iran, was the first nation to use chemical warfare in battle since Mussolini's army did so in Ethiopia in 1936.
The bottom line here is that if you do not believe Saddam Hussein will develop / refine and export weapons of mass destruction, then you are perfectly justified in believing we have no business going to war with Mr. Hussein's regime.
My biggest concern is that he will take the horrific weapons he has or will shortly make, and eventually sell them to the highest bidder, namely Al Quaeda. This way, Al Quaeda can inflict harm on the United States and there would not be any direct link to Saddam Hussein.
Are you willing to take this chance? Personally, I am not. For this reason, I believe we need to take this guy out.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Well Said!!!
OOH RAH!!!
it's to funny(or sad) that so many forgot about 9/11 so fast.
this guy in Iraq needs removed and right now. if we don't do it then who else will ?
I call this the wussification of america. dosen't anyone get it ?
rob.
<< <i>The suggestion that our forces would intentionally drop bombs on children begs an invitation to go live elsewhere. >>
To suggest that this was the implication of my post would be ludicrous, if it weren't so pathetic. But then, there is apparently no limit to the mud that some will sling - is that because slinging mud is easier than thinking, or even reading? Twist the words, bend the truth, it's an old game that been played all too often before.
And please stop the liberal media nonsense - that form of name calling is getting so....... old. Since you don't have the communist to pick on any more, throw your mud by calling folks liberal. Well, I for one, am a conservative, in the tradition of Barry Goldwater, not one of those phony neo-conservatives who have no idea what conservative ideals (read ideals Sir, not ideas) really are. But then Goldwater was too much of an Man to resort to namecalling, mudsliging, character assassination, and total lack of respect for those who held different points of view - nor was he a puppet of large corporate interests - Barry Goldwater, Dwight Eisenhower - they were real conservatives and real men - they understood how serious war is. Now, unfortunately, there are too many pubescent 30, 40 and 50 year old boys wanting to play war - and calling themselves conservatives - this too would be ludicrous, if it weren't so dangerous.
If this is just a first step toward taking out those that are pursuing a means to our demise, then yes.
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc, etc.
For the most part, the world can't stand our success and way of life. Most would revel in seeing our destruction. We should scrap the United Nations, pull out of NATO, tell the various collectivist nations like France, Germany and most of Europe that we will be witdrawing our troops, closing our bases and discontinuing US funding. Continue economic trade with those nations that wish to play on a level field and tell those that don't to stuff it.
We have for many decades ignored the wisdom of our Founders and their masterpiece (Constitution).
The rapid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood of them ending up in the hands of irrational militant dictators or terrorists should be considered unacceptable by civilized people. This is not a time for Chamberlins, but rather for Churchills and visionaries.
The day we put our national security and interests in the hands of foreign diplomats like the United Nations, is the day we burn whatever tatters are left of our Constitution and liberty.
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
Indeed, I was not going to respond further, having already laid out several replies, however, the below requires a response:
"US troops are already in Venezuela, and in Colombia, they are called advisors. The Generals of the Armies of both countries were trained in the US,at the College of the Americas, I believe in Florida. The generals were trained how to overthrow elected officials, put down ruthlessly opposition, and quash democratic uprisings, thereby allowing the US free reign of those governments by puppets. Some notable graduates, Pinochet of Chile and Noreiga of Panama.
TRUTH"
You are flat out wrong. I hope that you are just ignorant of the facts, if not, "truth teller" is the opposite of what we should label you.
FACT: There are no US advisors in Venezuela. There is a Presidential directive allowing for US troops to train Colombian security forces, but no such authority exists for Venezuela. Lumping Colombia with Venezuela seems like an easy leap, but it is a shell game with no validity. These two South American nations are totally different as is the attitudes of their leaders towards a US presence. President Uribe welcomes US aid, but President Chavez (and his military) would look with disfavor should US advisors turn up unannounced....translate that as they would "shoot at them."
FACT: The "College of the Americas" WAS the "School of the Americas"...notice I am using the PAST tense. It no longer exists because the Congress of the US recognized its failings and had it dismantled.
FACT: "Facts" are the enemy of arguments based upon "opinion." Both liberals and conservatives would do this country a service if they discussed issues using more facts and less "I think."
BOTTOM LINE: If you don't "know," study until you do "know." Then offer your informed opinion...It will hold more value if used sparingly and wisely.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
So your saying my only error is in stating that I didn't use past tense for School of the Americas? Well then, the rest of my argument stands unchallenged? Kudos for me.
TRUTH
A few thoughts…. America is an easy target; we are loved, envied and hated around the world. We are one of the richest nations in the world and we enjoy almost unlimited freedoms. Generally we are well educated and well informed. Most of us live a decent life and have plenty of food, shelter, we worship our choice of religions and have the right to freedom of speech.. Our country is prosperous and foremost very open. We protect the right of those who illegally enter this country and give them the protection afforded to its citizens. Ask yourself how many other places to that?
We were once fortress America, an island protected from the rest of the world’s problems. However 9/11 put an end to that. Yes over the years we have cuddled up with the wrong people, they became friends because we drew a big line in the sand, those who wanted democracy and those who wanted communism. Our allies over time made for some strange bedfellows. Where those decisions right or wrong? They probably looked right at the time….but hindsight is a wonderful thing,
What are we dealing with today? Radical or fanatical religious groups who blame their problems on us. Young children who have seen nothing put poverty, have no future and are told they are that way because of America and the Jews. Children that can neither read nor write but can recite the Koran forwards and backwards; children who are preached that a better life is to die for Islam, kill the infidels, as they will be rewarded with peace and prosperity in heaven. This is an army that will be very difficult to stop and it scares the hell out of me. The dictators of the world love this as it focuses attention away from terrible leadership and pathetic excuses for how they run there countries, the lack of freedoms and the very basic necessities of existence are not provided.
We are being challenged. Our way of life and its future existences is on the table. Do we sit back and let the world political bodies tell us what to do? Will the world protect us? Who is our white night? Should we put a fence around America and live in fear that another attack can happen at any given notice. I do not want to live in fear; I don’t want my children or friends to live in fear.
If the world was perfect, there are no wars, poverty, and starvation. But the world isn’t perfect and there is evil in this world. Yes over the years we acted were we choose, some of it based on economics, religion, and race, some were bad choices others good. But we have to believe that our young country has done things right or we wouldn’t be were we are today.
Do I like war…no. If one person dies it pains me as much as 1,000,000. We Americans carry the torch of freedom and it is a heavy burden.
If this action gives pause to other dictators and despots in the world, that there is a price to pay for what they do so be it.
To all of you that go in harms way, may you be protected by the arms of a higher being.
Your comments on the School of the America's are 30 years out of date. Get out of your Vietnam mindset and realize the US has a 21st century military with 21st century ideas and doctrine.
You are blissfully unaware of how US military forces cooperate with, educate, and train many nations in Latin America. The critical aspect of all of this engagement is to support "democracy." For example, read the Department of State's official position on President Chavez....He is the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER of his country...we support democracies.....Did you know the curriculum of every school where foreign officers attend includes subordination of the military to civilian control?? Thought not.
Sadly, not all nations ARE democracies and we have to deal with their leaders as well....we may not like it, but that's our challenge.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Madame - I slung no mud whatsover. Get over it.
Your tone suggests you'd prefer a flame-war. You don't want to go there with me. You stated your opinion, I stated mine. You're wrong and I'm right - or I'm wrong and you're right. Who the hell cares? I'm virtually certain the Joint Chiefs are not basing their decisions on what is written here. It's a discussion.
If your suggestion is that the media has not a liberal bias - you are in my opinion... misinformed or terribly sequestered. If I have misinterpreted - I apologize for my evident low-browed mentality.
Perhaps you'd prefer to witness sorting body parts in Chicago, or mass graves in Philadelphia, or (fill-in-the-blank) Maybe watching a family member die of radiation exposure would change your mind. Then - maybe the story would be different. Wasn't 9/11 enough? It was for me.
Nothing is understood by despot whack-jobs than a "big stick." You may sling all the anti-male rhetoric you like, but you won't change that sad fact. Yes - testosterone poisoning runs rampant, but you need not attack every male on the planet to make your point. Remember the Soviet Union? Gone. Why? "Big damned stick" that's why. (plus the obvious fact that communism doesn't work)
Whether your attitude is liberal or not, your words are flaming. Hugging trees is great, and saving owls is wonderful - but things are just a wee bit more serious than that. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the painfully obvious.
Your point is noted. Mine is equally valid in a public discussion. Let's end this one while it's still relatively friendly shall we?
You're not the only one here who understands how "serious" war is. I was regular Army. And you? What branch of the service did you serve in?
May God bless the brave young men and women who will fight for the freedom of a people oppressed by a godless dictator who has murdered over a million OF HIS OWN COUNTRYMEN. Where are the tears and gnashing of teeth for those people? I'd bet a pointed-nine dime their relatives remember all too well. Those that are still alive. Yes Ma'am. War is serious. Sometimes it's necessary to achieve lasting peace. If there world were a perfect place, and men were perfect beings... there'd be no need for war. It isn't, they aren't, and ignoring reality won't make it go away.
Unfortunately, you don't know me. I have dozens of relatives in Venezuela today who will ABSOLUTELY disagree with you. Advisors sometimes look like ambassadors or US embassy officials, or are dressed as officials, but their goals are definitely one in the same. But understanding your US tainted perspective, I can't convince you that things are different than you may perceive.
"we support democracies", "subordination of the military to civilian control". I really had to chuckle on those points. Marcos, Samosa, Pinochet, Noriega, etc. are all smiling right now.
TRUTH
<< <i>But understanding your US tainted perspective, I can't convince you that things are different than you may perceive. >>
We're all too stupid Truth. Please enlighten us more with your endless blather.
TT,
"I hear on the radio all the time, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannety, Micheal Reagan, all they do is HATE, bring down, ridicule"
your comments about HATE radio failed to include 'left-wing commentators' like Jim Hightower, Juliane Malveaux (of "I hope [Clarence Thomas'] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease"), or Miami Florida's Neil Rogers whose comments about National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice included: "Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart?" and a song parody broadcast on Rogers' show included: "Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?"
So much for the Truth
Yes, I forgot to mention those others. Nice that you agree with me.
So goes the Truth-Teller.
TRUTH
I'm 100% with Baseball on this one.
As I said earlier, I was disgusted by TT's attempts to paint Americans as being the ones to blame because we happen to have some wealth and a good military, etc. Americans have worked hard and long to accomplish what we have and no-one has a right to take it away from us and certainly no-one has any right to attack our people.
Way to go baseball!
JJacks
It has been said many times, that the only one you can count on in the final analysis is yourself.
All alliances are a temporary coming together of common interests. NATO in many ways has outlived
its usefullness and the UN has turned into a true rats nest. The Key commities and functioning
administrative staff are composed of the very nations and people who would deprive their own people
of a better more forfilling life. Our so called allies France, Germany and Korea have sold their very
souls for blood money contracts with all of the rogue nations. When they get burned along with the rest
of us, then they will come to America on their knees ,pleading for us to once again save them.
The Prime Minister of England is a brave man of principle and courage and he risks his job in the
defence of what he rightfully believes is true. It is my opinion that the Soviet Union has been replaced
with a world wide network of terror, aided and abetted by the nations we bled to defend. Further the
massive peace at any cost movement, reminds me of the protests in America before world war 2 ,untill Pearl Harber
was attacked. While those of us who have served, or are serving in the armed forces know the true
pain and cost of battle, there always comes a time when you must defend what you hold most dear.
Because of our nation of freedom and indevidual rights and easy access, I fear that we have allowed
vipers to enter this land as sleeper cells who intend to harm or destroy the very fabric and sense of
well being of all of our people. The battle we now are engaged in is world wide. It will be fought in the
dark night with silent weapons , stealth and cunning. It will be fought in the bright garish light of day
with conventional arms. It will be fought in the minds and and hearts and souls, of all the people
who inhabit this planet. People who believe that protesting violence will stop madmen, who care
little for kindness, decency or honor ,give aid and comfort to foes that wishes to inflict the worst horrors
on this nation since we were founded .No longer will our great oceans protect this land, no longer
will peaceful Nations on our borders prevent assassens and agents of death from breaching those
peaceful borders. The enemy of the 21st centry is reactionary. They would turn civilization back to
the dark ages. They would eliminate our freedoms to think as we wish, dress as we wish, pray as we
wish. If we are not victorious in this long and difficult battle, then generations yet to come will ask
"Why have we lost all that makes life worth living. Why did you not see the evil coming among us,
why did you not stand to defend this land , that God once shed his grace and loving kindness upon."
Camelot
I expected better than old 1960's warmonger statements. "Love it or leave it". Yeah, right! How truly unAmerican. If you don't like my comments, page down, close your eyes, keep on going. Unfortunately, you know I'm right, you just can't accept it! The idea of our country, right or wrong is stupid. The rights that we have include my right to say what I feel, and your right to not agree. Deep in your hearts, do you really want to have our country kill innocents in YOUR name? That's what it comes down to. Killing. We are wrong, my opinion, my right, and I'll damn well say it to you, in your face, right here, right now. Lose respect? I expect it, I demand it, because I know I am not here to please you.
TRUTH
Just a couple of questions ( and please don't read into this )
1. When did Sadaam Hussein take credit for flying those planes into the WTC?
2. When has Sadaam Hussein attacked, threatened to attack or even seemed likely to attack the United States?
3. When was the last time George Bush mention Bin Laden's name in public (careful I have the answer to this one)
4. Is anyone else noticing the infringement on personal liberties in this country AND are you okay with it?
Michael
The infrigement of our basic rights began in the Reagan administration, it's just accelerated with George W. to the degree where people are now begining to take notice. However, people are affraid to voice an opinion because we Americans love our cushy lifestyles and will do anything to maintain them, even at the price of liberties.
TRUTH
<< <i>Your HATE is filled with animosity toward the LEADER of OUR GREAT NATION, agree with him or not it is WRONG. If you HATE the President so much, if you hate our policies so much, if you think we are even remotely compararable to Nazi Germany, then go Fuc!n MOVE TO IRAQ. >>
Funny how one can spout off about this how great this nation is and it's ideals but yet at the same we can tell people who disagree with our opinions "to live somewhere else". Hypocracy at it's best.
People have the right, as an American citizens, to disagree with our foreign policy and to disagree with "our great leader" (your words NOT mine) and have the right to disagree with YOU without being called a "hate monger" or "commie" or other such non-sense.
Fratt: I've still never gotten a straight answer to ANY of those questions. Here are a couple more:
1) 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi's. Why did we attack Afganistan and completely ignore Saudi Arabia? OK, so Bin Laden was there. So? Last I checked he still around somewhere.
2) Speaking of unfinished business. What happened to the Anthrax scare? I still haven't heard where that came from?
3) I'd love to back the US idea of kicking Saddaaaam's %ss but it would be nice to actually have some evidence of their weapons. Again, I still haven't seen any.
It's no wonder I feel our Gov't is flailing around and not knowing what the hell it's doing. First Talaban, then Iraq, then N. Korea, then Iran....geeez, can we get some focus here?
jom
We just see things very differently. I take a 'whole world' perspective. This country lives in a whole world, and it should see what is best for the 'whole world' not just for us. The foreign policy that this country maintains is for the protection and benefit of the USA, not the world. My perspective is the protection of the world, which includes the USA. We must be part of a bigger picture, not just what's between the borders. We maintain 7 world fleets, a military presence in no less than 10 nations around the world, and political as well as financial influence in a majority of the countries throughout the world. Why is this so? For our benefit only, not the world's benefit, just our 'interests'. Why would we as a country openly deal with China, which represents some of the worst human rights ever. In fact, China is one of our best trading partners. This sends a very bad signal to the world. Kill Iraqis, hug Chinese. And in the years to come, the Chinese will definitely be THE major force to contend with. We can't say Saddam is bad, while the Chinese are good. So I guess, next on the list will be North Korea, then Iran, then Libya, then France. Let's kill everyone so we can save them.
TRUTH
I remember like it was yesterday the day I went to see Pearl with my father. He got up and left the theatre when the footage of the attack started. He couldn't watch it. Since that day, I can't either. I understand his anger and sorrow. It is an easy thing to forget how expensive freedom is.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>a military presence in no less than 10 nations around the world >>
-- always by their invite instead of imperialistic needs.
<< <i>The foreign policy that this country maintains is for the protection and benefit of the USA, not the world. >>
-- last I checked, this was this governments sole purpose.
<< <i>Why would we as a country openly deal with China, which represents some of the worst human rights ever. >>
-- so you can wear 99c underwear if you want to.
<< <i>So I guess, next on the list will be North Korea, then Iran, then Libya, then France. >>
-- see above about sole purpose
Sadam hasn't done anything in the last 10 years. He's just been hanging out being dictator minding his own business. He hasn't attacked us or any of his neighbors in the last decade.
So why does he have to go now?
Worst case is we go in, get gassed and we break out the tactical nukes. North Korea knows they're #2 on the list, so they ain't waiting around and overrun the border. Then we get to find if our military that was designed to win major wars on two seperate fronts will work or not. And while all this is going on Osama's buddies kick in. Poor Bush has to deal with the terror trifecta.
Perhaps the price of our SUV's may be much higher than $10 a gallon gas.
But with even a dove like Colin Powell beating the war drum, it won't be long.
Take our governments sage advice and stock up on that duct tape!
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
From Adian's initial post to this one, there have been a lot of images generated. I can't help but remember "taking in" the shoe display at Washington D.C.'s Holocaust Museum. If you have been there, you know what I mean by "taking in". With this in mind, I fear that war is appropriate.
Respect you?? You need to EARN it first. Its my god given right to tell you your pathetic. Please get a life.....
<< <i>This thread is just simply amazing -- I left for a little while and now we're 3 pages deeper into this.
Just a couple of questions ( and please don't read into this )
1. When did Sadaam Hussein take credit for flying those planes into the WTC?
2. When has Sadaam Hussein attacked, threatened to attack or even seemed likely to attack the United States?
3. When was the last time George Bush mention Bin Laden's name in public (careful I have the answer to this one)
4. Is anyone else noticing the infringement on personal liberties in this country AND are you okay with it?
Michael >>
Michael-
Regarding question#3. You can ASSUME you have the answer to that one. However, we all know that the networks do NOT make every speach available to the public. And they are very good at making sure that only comments that portray the picture they want to paint will make it to the people's airwaves.
Many people with views such as yours, want to bring the argument back to Bin Laden. What about Bin Laden? I too, wish we had been successful in extinguishing that fellow. However, I want to take you back to the first 2 or 3 days after the 9-11 attack, when the administration announced plans for our war against terrorism. If you will recall, President Bush, VP Dick Chaney, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and Sec. of State Collin Powell ALL said that we may never get Bin Laden. The attacks will be on Al Queda. We will kill and capture many of the members and we may never know the identity of all those we kill. We will destroy their physical facilities and put them on the run. However, he is only one man and the terrain is rough and mountainous. By putting them on the run, they will not be able to plan the logistics of additional attacks. Without training facilities, they will not be able to train replacement operatives.
Michael, we have DONE that!! No additional attacks on this country. They are on the run and cannot poke their heads up without having them blown off. Our war on Al Queda has been an overwhelming success! With the special forces following in small bands, it is only a matter of time before all the leaders of Al Queda are destroyed.
Do I want him to hit us first before we act... thats a tough call. The Hitler comparison is poignant, and makes us want to hit him now. I can lay no real criticism on that kind of thinking. So all I am left with is I don't know what to think or believe. All I really know to do is practice my best understanding if what prayer might be, and hope that in the end, our leaders will do what is UNIVERSALLY good.
--------
Howdy from Houston...
Can't keep my eyes
from the circling skies
Tongue tied and twisted
Just an earthbound misfit,
I
">my registry set