# Iraq War



## Mon Mon (Feb 9, 2003)

I think we should go reguardless of the UN but how about you guys what are yours


----------



## jfarnsworth (Feb 9, 2003)

Regardless of what we think I believe our president is going to do it anyways.    While were still chasing some idiot from cave to cave in afghanistan then going to war in Iraq I just hope we have enough troops to help patrol and control our home land. I'd hate to be a sitting target for some other organization to come in when all of our men/women are out. I guess it comes down to you must protect your own property then.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 9, 2003)

Tell me why we need to send our men and women to fight and die...then I can better answer the question.

Boogiemen, financial greed, and 'cuz I said so' or 'hes a baaaad mans' just aint good enough.

I have yet to see a good reason to goto war against Iraq.  That said, I'm reminded when watching the UN of something Mr. Chamberlin said "I believe it is peace in our time."

He was wrong.


Funny thing is....the last major warmongering moron to wage a multi front globial war ended up blowing his brains out in a bunker in a shattered capital, with the world allied against him....and his cronies danced on air.

Hope this one turns out better.


----------



## sweeper (Feb 9, 2003)

last major warmongering moron to wage a multi front globial war had now trade because he had no navy and had a world against him. We aren't there yet .

I don't think we should go in without a reason, we have no reason that I am aware of.


----------



## Kirk (Feb 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sweeper _
> *I don't think we should go in without a reason, we have no reason that I am aware of. *



I think we DO have reason.  There's a sect of muslims out there,
(*****e sp?) that just flat out hate us.  And they will attack us, over
and over again, in similar fashions to that of 9-11.  HOWEVER ...
something just doesn't click here.  There's plenty of other 
countries out there that hate us too, and they've flat out admitted
to having weapons of mass destruction (e.g. Pakistan, India, 
N. Korea).  Yet we're doing nothing about those countries?  
Something just doesn't jive.  During the bay of pigs, kennedy
released blatant evidence to the American people of the nukes
being planted there.  So far, what I've personally seen in the 
news is:

1) They have weapons of mass destruction!!!

We said "lets see the proof" ... we said, "lets see the proof that
they DON'T!  

2) If they don't have them, then let the UN inspectors back in.
They did.     Couldn't find anything, and now it's 

3) they have them .. but umm... they keep moving them, yeah,
that's the ticket!

I foresee problems with a multitude of Arabic countries.  (And if 
you read foreign news, they claim that we're loathed so strongly 
by them because we support and protect Isreal.)  They'll hate us
for decades to come, and they will attack for decades to come.
In that case, I see no other option than the best defense is a 
good offense.  But I'm not buying the crap we're being told.  I 
don't even believe that our government is going to war, because
they're eliminating a terroristic threat.  I also don't believe that
the UN is a governing body over the U.S.  Sure, you need foreign
favor, but not 100% of it.


----------



## Kirk (Feb 9, 2003)

Oh yeah ... in my eyes, the last war mongering done was done
by this country, and ended the cold war.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 10, 2003)

People say "If you hate it here so much, leave."  They miss the point that its not that I hate it here, but I in fact LOVE it here.

It is our duty as citizens to question our government.  To demand justification and explaination of its actions.  And, when we do not get that, to change that government to one that lives up to its promise to follow the will of the people.

Mr. Bush swore on a christian bible the following oath:
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." 

Each congressman and woman swore this oath:
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support 
 and defend the Constitution of the United States against all 
 enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith 
 and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation 
 freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; 
 and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of 
 the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The problem is, most people would rather not get involved, so the systems broken.  When less than half the able to vote population says 'f-it' theres a problem.  


I do not believe that there is just cause to wage a war against Iraq -at this moment-.

-The inspectors have found diddly.
-The world as a whole is -against- this war.
-There are other more serious issues that need attention: (The economy and  N. Korea for example)
-GB has offered "We The People" no real tangible, will hold up in court reason for this war.
-The military has free reign to go nuclear...not in responce, but right away.  Do it first, is the new mantra.  They have also anounced the end of the 'no one gets left behind' policy.  BOth are radical departures to past policies that made us different from 'them'.



Sadly, the stupidity of the sheep currently in office handed GW the power to do what he wants, WITHOUT! the checks and balances that used to be in place.  G.Bush Sr. needed congressional permission to start the Gulf War.  Jr. just needs to say "go."

9-11 changed many things...the checks and balances to prevent major abuses of power were one of those victims.



> Those speaking out for peace are not trying to justify the horrible deeds and crime against humanity that were thrust upon us on September 11, nor are they suggesting that those who committed these atrocious crimes should not be brought to justice. They are calling for a greater understanding and self-reflection at a most pivotal time in the history of the human species.


 I tend to agree with this.

:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 10, 2003)

Some thoughts to consider...


True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. 
Franklin D. Roosevelt 

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power. 
Franklin D. Roosevelt 

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country. 
Franklin D. Roosevelt 

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. 
Dwight D. Eisenhower 

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. 
Thomas Jefferson 

I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli. 
George Bush


----------



## Seig (Feb 10, 2003)

This is the bottom line.  So Damn Insane stated that he supports terrorism on the US, he will continue to support terrorism on the US, and that he will reward terrorism on the US.  Yes, as Americans we have a "right to know", but damn it people, you/we DO NOT have the right to know everything.  Saddam gets his frigging intelligence from CNN, and you know what?  They tell him EVERYTHING he needs to know.  That kind of abject stupidity is going to cost a lot of American lives.  The last moron to fight on multifronts?  I love that reference to Hitler.  First of all, I am a Jew and despise the very thought of Hitler.  Unfortunately, had Hitler not lost his sanity, he probably would have been successful, the man had a a genius level IQ.  Second, THE US was fighting on SEVERAL fronts during WWII.  You can break it down to 2, if you want, Europe and Asia.  The way I see it, it isn't an issue of whether we go kick the stuffing out of Iraq again or not, it is an issue of whether or not we are going to finish what we started.  Excuse me, but we haven't finished anything since V.J. day.  12 years ago, my buddies and I were the fresh faced kids either joining up or being sent over to Iraq, today they are the veteran leaders and I am bitter about my service 12 years ago.  I am not bitter about serving, I am bitter about how we were NOT led.  We were given a job and told to do it, and when it looked like we were going to succeed, we were told not to do it by the US Congress.  What was I doing?  Besides law enforcement and Search & Rescue, I was training counter terrorist tactics to the reservist that were being activated.  The middle-east has been a hot bed of political controversy for the past 50 years.  How many countries over there have NOT supported terrorist or other attacks on US citizens?  Last time we went over to kick Saddam out of Kuwait at their request.  Saudi Arabia asked us to defend them, and then gave us a bunch of rules, that we followed.  Do I think we are justified, yes.  Do I think we need UN approval?  No.  We support the UN and if it were not for us, it would have folded a LONG time ago.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 10, 2003)

Seig, you make alot of good points.  I think it should have ended in the last war, but like so many other cluster-fraks, things were screwed up by the polititians.

Why the Hitler reference?  Because.  Because I hear our government saying the -exact- same things that were said in 1938 and 1939 by a certain German leader.  Because a good number of people around the world view the US as nothing more than a global bully, who uses its military to promote the corporate agenda.  

As to Sadamy being kept in the dark, I doubt it.  Its kinda hard to hide the 150,000+ troop we've moved into the region, the growing number of warships and aircraft arriving.  He knows we are going to attack.  The only thing he does not know is the time and date and location of the first strike.  You and I don't need to know that.  We do not need to know -anything- that will cause a problem for the military operation.  In all honesty, and all seriousness, we dont need 150,000 troops.  We need a team of modern day ninjas (not in the pajamas) to infiltrate and then remove Saddam and his higher ups. 

What we need is the knowledge that this is in fact right.  Tell me there is proof...not that its suspected.  I suspect my nephew of stealing a couple of bucks from me, should I spank him without proof?  If not, then without proof, why should we ask our warriors to die?

I don't deny Sadamy is an evil SOB who should be taken out.  But then again, so are the N. Koreans, the Chinese, the Iranians, our old buddy Col. Kadafy Duck, and about 20 other SOBS.  Are we gonna go after all of them too?


The other thing I would like to know is, once we win, then what?  Does this administration which has no clue on how to fix the problems at home, have a plan to fix things over there so that we don't instead create 200 or 2000 or 20,000 Osama bin Laddens? Are we going to allow the military to finish the job, or will the polititans yet again stop short of finishing the job like they have so many times before?


Do I support a war against Iraq?
No.  Not without proof.  Suspicion is not enough.  We had proof in the last war.  We had proof in Afghanastan. We must have proof here too.  Show us the proof, and my support will be 100%.


To anyone still reading. 
These are -my- opinions.  They are not 'Official MT position'. I have my own position on things, and you have yours.  Please, do not hesitate to share your own if you so wish.  I will sometimes throw out a few quotes, or radical comments to provoke thought.  Some of these comments may (will) be controversial.  See them for what they are, something to think about, not neccessarily what I see as the 'truth'.  Thank you. :asian:


----------



## Elfan (Feb 10, 2003)

The poll question confuses me.  Are you asking if the US needs a UN fig leaf/permision to cover a war?  Or if the US should attach Iraq? or something else...



> I think we DO have reason. There's a sect of muslims out there,
> (*****e sp?) that just flat out hate us. And they will attack us, over
> and over again, in similar fashions to that of 9-11. HOWEVER ...
> something just doesn't click here.



Is that meant as a reference to Iraq or another country?  Iraq is a secular state that had a war *against* Islamic fundamentalists in the 1980s.  Just wanted to clear up what you meant.


----------



## sweeper (Feb 10, 2003)

Sadam has said he supported terrorism against the US since the gulf war. He actualy sent terrorists aorund the world to attack US targets, they all failed..  if that is the limit of the thret why didn't we hit him in the 90s?

knowing that sadam has wepaons of mass destruction probably would not greatly alter our strategy in the gulf, and as such him knowing we know wouldn't help him.

Bottom line in my opinion is there is no presented evidence that there is a reason to attack iraq (any greater than there has been a reason in the past or there is a reason to attack any number of other nations). And I don't trust our leaders saying that they have evidence yet not presenting any. If they did have evidence they would get near 100% support of this war, that would be worth to much t pass up.

As to arab nations not likeing the US because of how we support israel..  maybe if we supported them also they wouldn't hate us so much..  Not suggesting we should but rather there is a reason for their dislike, one wich we could change..


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sweeper _
> *Bottom line in my opinion is there is no presented evidence that there is a reason to attack iraq (any greater than there has been a reason in the past or there is a reason to attack any number of other nations). And I don't trust our leaders saying that they have evidence yet not presenting any. If they did have evidence they would get near 100% support of this war, that would be worth to much t pass up.*



OK, it's old news.  The govt presented the evidence to the UN just last week.

I watched CNN over the weekend and they showed Colin Powell presenting the evidence to the UN, complete with satallite photos, human intelligence reports, and photographs.  US intelligence has a lot of information that shows that Iraq not only has had the capability within the last 12 years that it is not currently accounting for, but it is circumventing the inspectors by hiding evidence and cleaning out facilities days before the inspectors arrive.

The Iraqi intelligence is also using all of its resources to spy on the inspectors, bugging their communications, and hampering their investigations.

For the past 12 years, Saddam has refused to follow the UN Resolutions.  He denied the inspectors access to key areas and then kicked them out of the country.  He has played the political game of refusing all the way to the line and then suddenly giving some ground.  Nothing is different today, other than Pres. Bush has said enough is enough.

Iraq is a big country.  With a few inspectors, it will not be easy to find a smoking gun.  I'm not surprised they haven't.  Hell, we have a hard enough time finding people and things in this country, and we have a large support force.  If we know he has had the capability in the last 12 years, it is his responsibility to show what was done with the technology.  He's not.  He's pretty much denying he ever had it.

There is evidence that terrorists are hiding within his country and are training and receiving assistance from that government.  

I personally don't want a war, but don't see what choice we have except to invade, unless he opens up.  I'm all for a political solution, but Saddam plays games in that realm.

We could ignore him, but how does that help the war against terrorists?  Terrorists could gain valuable training and weapons from him: conventional, biological, and nuclear.  And you know who's going to be targetted.  We've already tried the embargo deal, but technology and terrorists still slipped through.

OK, we try diplomacy.  We've tried that since 1991.  Where do we draw the line and say, that's it, we tried and he's not cooperating?

WhiteBirch


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 11, 2003)

I like George H Bush.

I tolerate George W. Bush.

As for the Gulf War, well to support Seig, it was really Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, I do not know of an actual declaration of War by Congress.

As Kaith and Others pointed out, in the 'Gulf War', Neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.N. Gave the U.S. Military and its' allies the authority to take Iraq. Just free Kuwait.


As for helping the Arab nations, the U.S. does help our Middle East Friends, both the Israelis and the Arabs. To day the best built Main Battle Tank is U.S. Made and is sold to the Kuwaitis and the Saudi's as well. As well as many of our Fighter Planes.


As for the Proof, I see that White Birch has related the Colin Powell Report to the U.N. This is good, yet, realize that this is what was presented to the U.N. to show why we ( Executive portion of the Government ) believe that it is imperative to take action.

I wish I could say more about things, yet  a promise is a promise.

As for the Chinese, they have stolen secrets and they have built weapons of mass destruction, yet they have not sent death squads or other attacks after U.S. Tourists or our country. The Chinese just want to make their own ways, and currently those in power have chosen Communism. The best way to handle the Chinese, in my opinion is the way of economics. Our U.S Government and the Chinese Government has opened up economic reform and allowed companies from the west in to market to the Chinese. Note: The local companies have to be at least 50% owned by locals. One of the first large products were cars from the U.S.  The demand is higher than ever imagined. Previously Chinese Law did not allow for cars to be purchased on credit. Yet, to keep all those people working they need to sell cars. To sell those cars, they took the Henry Ford Model and instituted a credit program.

As for the N. Koreans, they are very dangerous, and could or have sold weapons or weapon grade uranium on the open market. Were that originally got the capability is another long discussion. The N. Koreans main goal is the re-uniting of North and South, even though many in the south do not wish it so.

As for 'Kadafy Duck', he has been a threat and should be on a major watch list, and proof can be found, he should be taken out. Yet, we have found it hard to go into these Desert countries and infiltrate and strategically take out certain targets to avoid collateral damage. This seems to be true with Afghanistan as well.

As for Sadam, there have been things about him and his country that has not made the general public, even with the great coverage by CNN. Yet, with the U.N. Debriefing we now know that there are cell phone calls and tapping and bait and switch, and whole manufacturing sites moved.



Now for my overall opinion 

I support the U.S. Constitution without have to swear an oath. I think it is the best form of Government out there. It allows for people to express themselves, and for the document it self to be amended. This allows for growth and change.

As long as we have a view of only belonging to this country or that, or this religion or to that one, then there will be major differences, that result in friction to the point of military action. The point of the League of Nations and the successor the U.N. is to try to create a place for these differences to be aired with respect. The U.N. is a very weak Confederation that allows it members to follow the resolutions if they so wish too. If they do not wish too, then they are not in the U.N. or the rest of the U.N. has the option of taking action against them.

So, if the U.N. had sovereign power/authority over it's members then there would be a difference. The problem is that the small countries believe today that they do not get a big enough voice. Currently the U.S.A. is the Big boy in the block and s called upon to support the enforcement of the U.N. Resolutions. Our Allies do assist either with money or troops of their own, so it is not always the U.S.A alone. Just we are the biggest. As for the money, some of our allies still have not paid all of their support money to the U.S.A. Yet, we have not gone after them. Why?

They are our allies and not threaten to upset the world economy, by not repaying us. These other countries we 'target' have expressed a great dislike of the U.S.A. and would like to disrupt our economy and out the worlds as well. If you look at it from a certain point of view I can see why. They live in what we would call another time, with little modern conveniences. They just wish for us to be just like them, so as not to be a threat to their culture and way of life. Sound Familiar?

Yes or No? Do we go?  Personally I think the U.S.A. should wait for the support of the U.N. and or the support of the U.S. Congress, and not just the President. This expresses that either most of this country supports these actions, or most of the planet supports these actions.


Respects


----------



## sweeper (Feb 11, 2003)

lvwhitebir, I know they have had the capability in the past, I think I talked about that on another one of these threds.

"There is evidence that terrorists are hiding within his country and are training and receiving assistance from that government."

I wans't aware of this, could you direct me twards such information? just CNN.com ?

as to the gulf war thing, people just cal it that, like the vietnam war and the korean war.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sweeper _
> *lvwhitebir, I know they have had the capability in the past, I think I talked about that on another one of these threds.
> 
> "There is evidence that terrorists are hiding within his country and are training and receiving assistance from that government."
> ...



Sweeper,

As to the Korean / Vietnam and the Gulf War's I have to agree. It is what people call them. Any time to countries have physical conflict it should be defined as a war. I was only trying to make a point that there are shades of gray when talking about this for the Government.

No Disrespect to any man or woman who served their country in these or any conflict.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sweeper _
> *"There is evidence that terrorists are hiding within his country and are training and receiving assistance from that government."
> 
> I wans't aware of this, could you direct me twards such information? just CNN.com ?
> *



I actually got that information from Colin Powell's briefing to the UN.  He said that we have knowledge of a specific terrorist being in his country and asked a friendly service (friendly to whom I didn't get) to ask Iraq to catch him.  We even supposedly provided information which would make it easy to catch him.  They denied he was even there.

Here are some CNN articles on the subject:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/06/sprj.irq.powell.world.reax/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.key.points.txt/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.case.against.saddam/
Bush told the U.N. General Assembly in September that al Qaeda operatives are now in Iraq and warned that Saddam could provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. 

And recently the administation said al Qaeda members have been in Baghdad seeking training in biological and chemical weapons and to discuss safe haven opportunities in Iraq. 

"We certainly have evidence of senior al Qaeda who have been in Baghdad in recent periods," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. 


The article cited also links activities seen in Iraq to post-WW1 Germany.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/timep.bush.iraq.tm/index.html
When it was over, Powell had done about as much as any member of the Administration could to convince the world that Saddam was cheating the inspectors, hiding weapons of mass destruction, maneuvering to acquire nuclear weapons and in league with terrorists from al-Qaeda. 

The difficulty is this: lots of people already knew that or at least suspected it. The issue is what to do now and how to make the case for war. As a senior diplomat at the U.N. said, "The Security Council is not arguing about whether Iraq is cooperating with the inspectors. Everyone but the Syrians acknowledges that it is not. The question is, Should we go to war?" Neither the Security Council nor the American public have answered that question unambiguously in the affirmative. 


WhiteBirch


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2003)

An Article about N. Korea

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...20030212/ap_on_go_co/us_north_korea_missile_9


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Feb 12, 2003)

Alright, here comes the tirade:
:soapbox:

I don't know what to do with Iraq... I find it kind of strange that Bush is concentrating so much on this one dictator when the whole world's chock full of them.

My main problem with any invasion of Iraq comes from fears of gung-ho solutions... I don't think just bombing the spit out of the country's going to solve anything. The economic sanctions that have been leveled on that country have destroyed its entire economy. They have enough problem making bread, much less bombs. If you want to fix Iraq, you've got to remove the sanctions, you've got to get new institutions in there that rebuild its economy. And then there's Saddam Hussein. I do think he needs to be removed. I don't know how, but I don't know if the polits back in office in D.C. are willing or capable of making the choice to remove a person from power in another country. It's the moral thing to do, sure, but it violates every international law we've got. That's half the problem. (And by the way, don't think I'm justifying international law unconditionally, here... I've got my own problems with a system that allows folks like Hussein to have power unchecked)

The other half is, how do we justify a war against a country for the sole purpose of removing one man? Can we justify however many thousand people are going to be MURDERED because we can't stand Saddam? I've seen enough evidence from independent news sources about how bad things got the first time the world attacked Iraq. It wasn't pretty. No criticism of the people living in the US or working in its various military bodies, they were "just doing their job," but there were an awful lot of innocent civilians who got killed. Maybe it's time we start questioning WHY it is the U.S. Government wants this war, when it seems that an increasing number of American CITIZENS don't want anything to do with it. Then there's the fact that most of the US's primary allies want nothing to do with this war for various reasons. I guarantee that Germany isn't going to support the war, nor will France. 

So why a war in Iraq? To take coverage off Bush's mismanagement of the US economy? To win oil (the old standard of the left's case against the war)? To settle an old family feud? Why just Iraq? The honest answer I've got is, I don't know. I can't for the life of me understand how or why Bush thinks this is justifiable. 

On another note, I can't trust CNN. They don't operate based on the interests of the people of the US, nor do they operate on the basis of the good of humanity. They have to get advertisement, and to do so, they support a view of public policy that is SKEWED toward corporate and elite agendas. If you think I'm bulling you all on this, read "Understanding Power" or "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky. It's all there. Maybe it's just that I'm somewhat skeptical, but I do not and cannot trust information that is given to me by a source that is based in one side of a conflict. Of course they're going to be biased toward their own side, and that doesn't help me decide what is the best way to deal with the issue.

I realize all this seems somewhat like a tangential argument, but the truth is, I DON'T TRUST what I'm being fed by Bush's administration. It doesn't sit right with me, and the evidence from Powell wasn't exactly a smoking gun. For that, I need to see pictures of the bombs, the nukes, the missiles, etc. Give me that, and I'll support a war.

My point in raising all these rather radical ideas is that I feel we have to question what's going on. Kaith said it as well as I can, in that it is our civic responsibility, and our moral responsibility as human beings, to question the decisions of those in power. We must make sure that we do not take a course of action that could kill innocent people, or that could cause more damage than good.

And as to the whole "Hitler" issue, I find it somewhat ironic that Bush is labelling Hussein as the new Hitler, when he's the one invading people and using scapegoating to stir up war. I'd also question the idea that the rest of the world "hates" the US. Sure, some do, some don't, but if they do, perhaps instead of bombing the snuff out of some country that already hates us, the West should start questioning why it is that the rest of the world "hates" the West. The West has had a long history of forcing itself on the rest of the world, both economically and socially. Maybe we in the US and Canada ought to think about whether or not we have the right to stick our noses in other people's business. Let's not forget that Osama bin Laden and Saddamn Hussein were trained, financed, and supported by the good old U.S. of A's government. Is it any real wonder that, once they were done fighting off our Cold War opponents, they continued to do what they were trained to do (i.e., fight off foreign invaders)? This time, we're the invaders. I find no moral justification for invading a country because we're upset that the monsters WE created have come back to bite the hand that fed them. If we want to fix things, then maybe we should stop training said monsters, and stop supporting their actions. The US's military industrial complex sold weapons to the Germans in WWII, for crying out loud, during the middle of the war!!! It's the same thing here. 

I say, no more guns to foreign countries. No more tanks to people who are going to use them to murder civilians. No more bombs to people who are going to use them to commit suicide attacks. Enough is enough. Once the West does that, I can say that our hands are clean enough to remove a dictator from power by force... but even then, only if all other options are exhausted.

If we're going to be moral and noble, we'd better bloody well do it honestly.

--Cliarlaoch
PS: I realize this little rant of mine has probably pissed a few people off, however, I will not apologize for it. I respect the right of others to say what they feel, and I ask the same from them in exchange. In so doing, I recognize that some people are going to have a completely different point of view from mine that may offend me, and vice-versa. But if we're going to claim to believe in free speech and in the right to believe in what we choose... well, then we'd better be willing to be offended. Good day, all.
PPS: Never invite a politics student to argue with you... you end up with a rant.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2003)

An Article on DC and defense

http://msnbc.com/news/870313.asp


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2003)

The Latest From Secretary of State Colin Powell

http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=021220031230


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2003)

Follow - up N. Korean Article

http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp?vts=021220031230


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 12, 2003)

Cliarlaoch,
  Thank you for 'getting' what I was saying.

1 question - Can you justify this statement? I'm honestly curious of your sources as this is the first I've heard of it.


> The US's military industrial complex sold weapons to the Germans in WWII, for crying out loud, during the middle of the war!



:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2003)

Kaith,

I am not sure of this, yet I do know that there were many a North American or English Company that had offices and manufacturing plants in Germany before and during World War II.

I do not know of any sources, Yet I could easily see an order going through a Neutral Ally or through a company affliated with a Germany company here in the states making the order and even delivering them to Europe. The larger the machine the easier it is to get lost in the system, and even in WW II the U.S. Government was a large entity.

Very Curious if sources could be provided. THanks for the post!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2003)

Some Scary Thoughts

http://msnbc.com/news/871342.asp


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2003)

U.N. To Destroy Banned Weapons

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20030212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_inspectors_3


----------



## Pakhet (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *The US's military industrial complex sold weapons to the Germans in WWII, for crying out loud, during the middle of the war!!! It's the same thing here. *



Are you referring to the Prescott Bush/Nazi connection?  If so, not everyone may know all the details.  I'll try to find my links...

Lisa


----------



## sweeper (Feb 12, 2003)

as US selling weapons to germany,I would believe it..  remember the thing with IBM not to long ago?

And lvwhitebir thanks for the links, I'm off to read them right now.


----------



## GouRonin (Feb 12, 2003)

I am quite happy with my gov't's position on the Iraq issue. If the UN says go we'll be there.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GouRonin _
> *I am quite happy with my gov't's position on the Iraq issue. If the UN says go we'll be there. *




Gou,

Quit being a reasonable person expressing their opinions. This just has to stop.  I will not allow it; 

Well ok maybe just for a short while.:rofl:


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 13, 2003)

Rant away Cliarlaoch.  That's what this country is all about, Freedom of Speech.

Here's some of my viewpoints from what you bring up.



> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *I don't know what to do with Iraq... I find it kind of strange that Bush is concentrating so much on this one dictator when the whole world's chock full of them.*



IMO he's doing it because the UN (read as the WORLD) has sanctions against Iraq that are currently in place that are being defied.  N. Korea does not have such sanctions, at least not yet, so we can't do anything but talk to them.  Khadify is off the radar at the moment so he's not a direct threat.  I can't think of any others off hand, but we'll always have some nut case doing what he wants, when he wants it.

We aren't directly rallying against dictators.  People are free to have the government they want.  We just won't help them rule and we'll make sure they stay in their own borders.



> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *They have enough problem making bread, much less bombs. If you want to fix Iraq, you've got to remove the sanctions, you've got to get new institutions in there that rebuild its economy. And then there's Saddam Hussein. I do think he needs to be removed. *



We have found that the sanctions are not hurting the people in the country that make the war-mongering decisions.  They are hurting the average citizen.  That's the only reason why it's not working.  We've allowed Iraq to have many types of things for humanitarian aid.  But, we've said that if they don't "play nice" then they don't get the benefits of other countries.  Too bad they don't see that.

Right now the government of Iraq is too intent on purchasing illegal technology, instead of helping its citizens.  If it really wanted to help it's people, really wanted to comply with the UN resolutions, they would divert their money into less military uses and more humanitarian ones.  If they fully complied, they would essentially humiliate the US government, especially now.  How powerful would that be to them.



> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *The other half is, how do we justify a war against a country for the sole purpose of removing one man? Can we justify however many thousand people are going to be MURDERED because we can't stand Saddam? *



It's not all one man.  It's the government in general, including the ruling political party.  If the Iraqi people were having trouble with just one man, they would remove him themselves pretty easily.  Unfortunately the government controls the military and won't be removed so easily.

The only people that will be murdered are those that are fighting the battle or those that are basically human shields.  The US won't directly engage civilians, but these innocents may be too close to military targets.  Other than that, there will always be incidental casualties.  You can't avoid it.  If it were a perfect world, we won't be having this conflict in the first place.

If you don't want to fight a war because innocent people will die, then how many do you think will die from the attacks that might follow if Iraq's power is not checked?  Can we find a way to have the least amount of bloodshead?  Remember, Iraq started this whole thing.  They threw the first punch.  The world has punished them and told them to be nice.  It's their responsibilty now to show they're living up to their part of the bargain.



> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *I guarantee that Germany isn't going to support the war, nor will France. *



I believe they will support a war once their definition of a "political solution" runs out.  Our patience has run thin, their's will too eventually.  They've already agreed that Iraq is in violation of the sanctions, but they want to give the inspectors more time to find the "smoking gun".  We'll see what they say when the inspectors report back to the UN tomorrow.

It's a damn big country.  You can hide an awful lot of things, especially when you're watching the inspectors' every move.



> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *So why a war in Iraq? To take coverage off Bush's mismanagement of the US economy? To win oil (the old standard of the left's case against the war)? To settle an old family feud? Why just Iraq? The honest answer I've got is, I don't know. I can't for the life of me understand how or why Bush thinks this is justifiable. *



IMO, Bush has found something to make him stand out; something to define his presidency.  It's the same for all leaders, from political to commercial.  We see company presidents come in all the time and re-organize the workforce.  They do it because they think its the right thing to do and that it defines their position.  The whole idea was kind of thrust on him from 9/11.  Who knows what he'd hang his hat on otherwise.



> _Originally posted by Cliarlaoch _
> *On another note, I can't trust CNN. They don't operate based on the interests of the people of the US, nor do they operate on the basis of the good of humanity.
> ...
> I realize all this seems somewhat like a tangential argument, but the truth is, I DON'T TRUST what I'm being fed by Bush's administration. It doesn't sit right with me, and the evidence from Powell wasn't exactly a smoking gun. For that, I need to see pictures of the bombs, the nukes, the missiles, etc. Give me that, and I'll support a war. *



CNN isn't doing anything (that I know of) other than reporting what's happening.  They're not starting the war, they're not saying that they found missiles in Iraq.  They're just providing an explanation of what other's are saying.  They are one of several news organisations that try to find the evidence.

Unfortunately their access into Iraq is limited.  In most cases, their reports must be approved by the Iraqi government and their access to sites and people is restricted.  How do we know what it's really like if all we see on that side is what Iraq wants us to see?

Some people don't trust the CIA's intelligence that Powell presented.  That's fine, you can't have 100% agreement.  It'll be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the US to prove that he's got weapons ready and able.  Therefore, per the UN, it's not our responsibility to do so.  We have information of what Iraq had in 1991, and know a lot about what's they received since then.  It's their responsibility to show the UN what they've done with it.  They are not!  

Per the inspectors themselves, their document had gaps.  The US has pictures of them clearing out weapon sites, has human and electronic intelligence that says they are actively deceiving the inspectors.  The last quote I saw was that everyone in the UN agrees with that, except Syria.  The only argument is whether the political solutions have run out.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 15, 2003)

Well, the UN hasn't found anything major yet.....most of the UN wants to keep looking, and the Warhawks are livid.  Basically saying 'well, we know better, so do what we want or we're gonna do it ourselves'.

Anyone else but me see a problem with all this?  

Every other time we went to war we went with a nice amount of support, as liberators and defenders.  This time, we're shooting first.

I dunno....

My prediction?   Between now and March 31st, 'something' big will happen and 'create' the 'excuse' needed to launch a full assault.  We will find out about the assault being launched about 15-30 minutes after it starts.

Hopefully, they don't kill too many folks with the 'excuse'...
bastards..all of em, on all sides.


----------



## Shinobi (Feb 15, 2003)

I don't know anymore. I don't know what, or whom to believe. None of it adds up or makes any sense. I.....well after 9/11 I would have been all for it. Untill I relized, the killing didn't stop at 9/11. The killing is still happening. 

And it doesn't matter...what Government...what Country. They all have propaganda to make them seem in the right. Everything Bush is doing, he has, his keyword is "Anti-Terrorism."

That seems to be the buzzword now. Bush don't like someone? "They're terrorists out to kill us. We MUST draw first blood and take over their Government." I know one thing, OUR Country is falling to  pieces and I don't see anyone who can control it doing anything. Bush seems to have forgotten about US and the economy. I guess....I would say we mind our own business and get our Country in order.

"I foresee problems with a multitude of Arabic countries. (And if 
you read foreign news, they claim that we're loathed so strongly 
by them because we support and protect Isreal.)"

True. The terrorists do hate us because of that and even say so. It's not as simple as that. I don't know. I think if we helped EVERYONE out over there and not just Israel, we could create some sort of peace. Such as Bush and the UN sitting down and saying "you, you're held responsible for suicide bombings. Tell your people to stop. Israel, if they stop, you leave them completely alone. They do their thing in their country and you do yours."

I dunno...just a suggestion.


----------



## Elfan (Feb 16, 2003)

> The writer I.F. Stone used to be asked to speak to journalism classes, and he would say, "If you want to know about governments, all you have to know is two words: governments lie."


----------



## GaryM (Feb 17, 2003)

..be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box!


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Feb 17, 2003)

In response to lvwhitebir, thanks for the commentary... good points to raise. I still don't trust big media sources, mind you, but they're not as bad as they could be. 

As for the comment on the German/US business connection in WWII, Kaith, I'm hunting down my old sources (a friend of mine with better recall than me came across this sort of stuff years back, and passed it on to me, which is why I'm not as sharp on this one as I should be). For one, there is the IBM connection, wherein IBM helped Hitler catalogue those who were Jews in Germany so he could capture them more easily, but there were other examples, primarily of gun manufacturers, engine companies (for planes and the like) that were also involved... at least as far as I remember from my conversations with my above-mentioned friend... gotta give him a call and pick his brain. Back to you ASAP on that. The info's there, I just gotta find it again.

As for whether or not certain countries will be willing to go to war... I don't know if they'll be ABLE to go to war and remain in office. With all the mass protests going on right now, I don't think Germany, France, Canada, and heck, even the US can afford to make a mistake on this issue. If they do, it'll lead to problems at the next election for those in office. That's probably why I don't think Germany or France are going to be likely to commit to the war easily, if at all. Schroeder was elected on an anti-war platform. If he reneges on that, he'll be in deep doo-doo. Similar issue with Chretien up here in Hockey-land (Canada, eh?). While he wasn't elected on an anti-war platform, he IS trying to protect his legacy and the power of his party (the Liberals). If he goes about this in a way that the populace doesn't like (i.e. jumping the gun w/o UN support, possibly even fighting in the first place), the Liberals will crumble at the next election. Fun part about all this is that Canada's army is so small that we wouldn't be able to do much at all except offer the allies some beers and hope we can duck underneath whatever shots get fired long enough to beat up the enemy with our hockey sticks. (Sorry, had to go for the cheap laugh with the Canadian stereotype gags).



Another point for your debating pleasure: we've got to remember to be careful about the way we look at "defense" in the West... it's not really defense at all, if you think about it. It's OFFENSE. We ATTACK other countries. The only thing we can and should try to defend against are foreign attacks, but of course, people don't think that works after 9-11, but that doesn't mean we should start being aggressors ourselves. Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence. But try calling foreign policy "offensive" or such, and you'll be treated as a laughing stock. Why? Because we're told by every major source, the media, the government, etc. that we're being defensive. Example: How exactly are we being defensive if our planes are getting shot at for violating ANOTHER COUNTRY'S AIRSPACE (witness all those times US planes got shot at over Libya in the 80s... they were flying over Libyan airspace, and they were the only ones getting shot at... the Brits, the French, nobody else was, only the US... why? Because the US's jets were the only ones in Libyan airspace!!!)?!? Most other countries, if they did that, would get censured by the rest of the world, but when the big names do it, it's called "surveillance" or "defense." Another Chomsky-ism, but I like him and he's smarter than me, so hopefully you won't mind if I bring it up. 

One last quick point... I know as well as anyone how bad things are in Iraq, and I know the common counter-argument to doves like me: how can we justify ALLOWING Saddam to stay in power if all he does is murder his own citizens. That said, there are two problems I have with war, and I think this is what my entire argument boils down to... For one, how can we say, on the one hand, that people should be free to pick their own governments, and then try and force them to accept a new one? I can conceive a counter to this already, and that is that people may not be free to make that choice, and certainly that problem exists in Iraq. But how can we be sure that we're going to solve the problem by removing Saddam Hussein? There's no guarantee that the whole country won't split apart into its separate ethnic, religious, and tribal groups, and there's little guarantee that whoever succeeds Saddam will be a better ruler. My point here is that we've got to be careful about assuming that war will actually manage to change anything. I know this sounds defeatist, but it's a genuine concern, I think. 

The second problem is that we're simply perpetuating things by continuing the attacks on the rest of the world. If we want to really stop war, I think every country in the West has got to rethink how we go about dealing with the rest of the country. The US spends 360 some-odd Billion Dollars A YEAR on its military... and we're expected to believe that Bush's promise of a measly 1.2 Billion to help fight AIDS in Africa is generous (this from his State of the Union address).  Imagine what we could do if those 300-plus Billion Dollars were pumped into the US's own economy, and into humanitarian projects worldwide. The UN estimates that it would only take a fraction of that amount per year to provide food for the world. Meanwhile, within 20-30 years, the world will begin to exhaust its water reserves. Maybe we ought to be spending our resources trying to find ways to ensure that our planet can sustain our existence? Again, just ideas here... they sound idealistic, but maybe if enough of us actually started getting involved, using our right to vote, using our right to speak out against our governments, etc., we might start to make a difference. Maybe instead of waging war on Iraq, we could find more constructive ways of dealing with Saddam and others like him: by providing the people living under these dictators with the means of living a good life, access to information that will allow them to question their governments, and maybe then the means to change their circumstances. 

Just a thought. Call me a dreamer, but I'd rather try to find some other way of solving the world's problems then war. Because as long as people accept force as an option in solving our differences, then we're just going to keep on killing each other. Look at Martial Arts. We love to practice them, but one of the most important things we learn is never to use our skills without just cause. Maybe it's time the world started to do the same.

--Cliarlaoch

PS: Feel free to fire back at me... I'll try to respond as soon as I have spare time (bloody homework).


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 18, 2003)

Cliarlaoch, I think that most in the US would agree that pumping that money back into the economy would be helpful, at least to a point.  One problem, the defense contractors employ a lot of people.  That would be a lot out of jobs.

The second problem is the perception of the populace.  The democrats reduced the defense spending with Clinton, saying that we need to do more with less.  I was in the government at the time and we had a huge reduction in force, without any reduction in requirements.  Then 9/11 happens and people blame the government saying it should have known and prevented it.  Well, when you're overworked, things take longer to find and put together.

Enough said by me.  I hope we avoid a war.  The ball is in Iraq's court.

WhiteBirch


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by lvwhitebir _
> *Cliarlaoch, I think that most in the US would agree that pumping that money back into the economy would be helpful, at least to a point.  One problem, the defense contractors employ a lot of people.  That would be a lot out of jobs.
> 
> The second problem is the perception of the populace.  The democrats reduced the defense spending with Clinton, saying that we need to do more with less.  I was in the government at the time and we had a huge reduction in force, without any reduction in requirements.  Then 9/11 happens and people blame the government saying it should have known and prevented it.  Well, when you're overworked, things take longer to find and put together.
> ...



Fair enough. I hope we avoid a war, too... but I doubt we can, now.


Oh well, time will tell. 

On a slightly more cynical note, anyone got any bets on how long it'll be before Dubya says something dumb again, like "People need to understand that commerce is about trade," or "People have a lot of faith in me... they tell me, don't ever let us down again." 

I'm saying about 2 hours into the war, we'll here something about war being the proper way to find peace. Sheesh.

--Cliarlaoch


----------



## Zujitsuka (Feb 19, 2003)

I hope that we don't go to war.

If war does come, the U.S. should not go into this alone.  Let the U.N. play a part or we'll undermine their importance.  Additionally, someone else should share in the costs of this campaign.  Why should U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab in dollars and blood?

It is also my understanding that Turkey, a NATO ally wants the U.S. to pay rent for using their military installations as a staging area.  We're paying off a lot of people these days.  It seems like we're being played by so-called friend and foes alike.

Peace and blessings,


----------



## Jas (Feb 19, 2003)

I keep hearing show us proof, what kind of proof do you want? Do you want to see saddam on Cnn standing next to a nuclear missile or do you want to see pictures of victoms of his new chemical weapon, I think then it will be to late!! If any of these countries ever get the power to destroy us they will, so why not destroy them while we still have some power left. I am so sick of people who have never served this nation claiming the rights they think they deserve and then questioning the govt. when its time to go fight for those same rights. My grandfather landed on the shores of Guadalcanal with the 1st Marine Raider division, my father was with the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam and I went to Iraq with the 2nd Marine division and Bosnia with The 2nd Marine Recon Battalion, I think my family has earned the right to question the govt. and yet we never do, but you get some college kids sitting around there favorite coffee house tables and all of a sudden they become the new joint chiefs of staff with all the answers to our countries problems...

                  LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 19, 2003)

Let me see if I understand the global situation:

IRAQ:
-Is suspected of having weapons of mass destruction
-is suspected of having a secret nuclear program
-is suspected of having the delivery means to use WMD to hit about 100-200 miles away...not much farther.
-is allowing survelience of their country (now)
-is allowing inspectors to go where they will
-is cooperating (somewhat) with working things out (outta the knowledge that now is not the time to act tough)

N.KOREA:
-HAS WoMD
-HAS a nuclear program
-HAS the means to drop a nuke on LA.
-HAS expelled inspectors
-IS Mobilizing for a fight


Umm...anyone else understand why we are aimed at the 'maybe' vs the 'definite'?

Think it might have something to do with that black liquid and related transport routes that Iraq has, that NKorea dont?

Hmm.....


Hows this for proof?
Let the inspectors do their job and either find enough to convict or else report back that they were denied access.  

Putting it another way, youre a cop.  You hear gunfire on the other side of a fence.  there are 2 guys there.  One says "Nice gun huh?" and holds it up, with smoke still drifting from the barrel.  Other guy (whose wearing a rolex) says, 'I got no gun'.  But you remember his talking smack about your dad. So, what do you do?

If you are George W. Bush, you get someone else to beat up the guy without the gun, while totally ignoring the guy with the firearm.  Oh, and you take the rolex while youre at it.

:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 19, 2003)

That said...the question is, do we need the 'support' of the UN to attack?

Yes and No.

Yes - because we are a member nation, who has agreed to certain requirements as part of that organization.  This matter is under the juristiction of the UN and should be handled there.

No - if the UN ceases to be a body that can handle these types of issues, then the US should Withdraw! from the organization, and go it alone.

If I remember right, the US witdrawing from the ineffectual League of Nations was a factor in its dismanteling.  (Someone correct me if Im mistaken here please)

If the proof is there, (real proof, not manufactured proof), and the UN just wants to sit around n talk for ever, then by all means, take the bastards out.  But given that there are an equal number of other targets just as good as, if not more of a 'danger' than Iraq, someone needs to answer the question of why him, rathert than the others....besides the hard on W has for Sadamy that is....


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 19, 2003)

Kaith,

I think you might be using the proceeds from the board to help some other than Red Blooded Americans. Therfore you and everything about you should be brought to a quick and painful end.


*NOT!*

Boy, if all it took were claims then the bill of rights means nothing.
Can someone say McCarthy? (sp)

Personally I think that the U.N. should have allowed the Gulf War to be brought to an end by the Allied oocupation of Iraq. If the Kuwaiti and Saudi troops did the occupying then there would not have been as big a back lash to the U.S.A. Yet  it was not allowed for anyone to occupy Iraq. Now we are here. 


As for the Iraq vs N. Korea thing, it was stated previously, ( I cannot remember by whom sorry *) that there are U.N. Sanctions active against the country of Iraq and that there are none against N. Korea. Therefore the U.N. is reacting to the sanctions. I agree with this process for it is what the U.N. has agreed too. I also believe that sanctions should be brought against N. Korea and inspectors allowed back in. Yet, this is my opinion. Also, as Kaith stated, N. Korea probably believes that the U.N. does not represent their best interests and therefore are going it alone. 

I do hope that the human race survives. Just my opinion


----------



## Elfan (Feb 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jas _
> * If any of these countries ever get the power to destroy us they will, so why not destroy them while we still have some power left. *



Since WWII no nation, including murder's on a scale to witch Sadam can hardly compare, has used Nuclear weapons for anything other than deterrence.  That's all they are good for, keeping Nation's from invading each other, which is a good thing.



> *I am so sick of people who have never served this nation claiming the rights they think they deserve and then questioning the govt. when its time to go fight for those same rights.  *



I fail to see how invading Iraq would increase or even preserve freedom in the US.  If the actions of the Justice department under John Ashcroft thus far are anything to go by it will *decrease* freedom.

BTW If military service is to be considered a prerequisite for questioning the government, wouldn't it be desirable for high ranking government officials to have served themselves? That is not the case in this administration.

http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 19, 2003)

:soapbox: 

My family has served, my family has bleed, my familiy has paid the price many times.  I have friends who were in the last Gulf conflict, I have freinds who are -still- in Afghanastan.  Many of my friends from HS went into different branches...some never returned.

They paid a price so that folks like me have the ability to say whats on our mind.  People think the government is in charge...WRONG!!!!!!!!!

-WE- are -SUPPOSED- to be the government..... "BY the people, FOR the people..."  Not "By some out of touch folks who do what they want anyways..."

There are huge protests all over this country (and the world, but they dont count in this exercize) screaming against a war with Iraq.... they are compared to a small bunch of whiners, and a 'focus group'.  Do the people whose hands are on the buttons have -any- clue whats going on in the real world?  Or do they just follow thier own agenda, and we are so many numbers on a computer screen?

This president has the -unconstitutional- ability to declare war, because our supposedly educated and intellegnet leaders were busy pissing themselves in fear.  The Supreme Court will not strike down that -unconstitutional- law as they are the same individuals who selected the winner in the last so-called election...not us, not -THE PEOPLE-.  Congress is just now starting to wake up, however the majority of them will not (for whatever reason) do anything about it.  Too easy to just keep heading down the road to hell.

I'll agree, Iraq had sanctions, NV did not, HOWEVER!, the argument being given is that IRAQ presents a Clear and Present Danger....my question is, N.V does not?  NV does not present a more apparent danger?

Who is more dangerous?
The guy with the gun, locked n loaded n pointed at your head, 
or the guy with both hands up, no weapon in sight?

The US will shoulder the major burden of this attack.  It is our money being sent oversees to bribe countries in exchange for staging areas, it is our men and women who are heading into peril, many never to return to these shores.  It is our families that will be torn apart.  Not GW's, not Powells, not Cheneys.  Ours!  Not the bloody French, not the Germans, not even the British. 90+% of this is on the US Armed forces and no where else.  The Canadians, who have backed us every step of the way have said 'Not without UN ok'.  Japan is with us...in spirit.  Maybe they can send a few cops to stand guard over the POWs.  But they wont field so much as a platoon in combat.  I wouldnt bet too much on Britain either....it seems like the only Brit who wants to go all out is Blair....the rest of his gov. is against it.

So its just us.  We have the most technologically advanced army in the world, second in size only to the Chinese.  But, can we really go it alone, when the world only grows more hostile towards us due to 'cowboy diplomacy'?

What I want to know is.... is the price -WE- are going to pay in blood, sweat, tears and lives worth it?  Are we truely fighting for freedom, or just so Dick Cheney can make a few more bucks on his dividends?

I will continue to speak out against this 'war for money' until I can see it as something other than that.  Announce youve found some nukes, a biowarefare plant, a cruise missile, hell, Jimmy Hoffa.  And then I'll rethink my position...because, I can think for myself...I do not go blindly on what my supposed government, or political party, or whomever says.  I will look at the issue from all sides, weigh out the evidence and materials, and then, make up my own mind.

I'm an American....my family, friends and ancestors fought to preserve this county and make it a great nation.  They laid down their lives to liberate France, Italy, Sicily, the Phillipians, and more. 

I will not blindly follow....and I will not get out of the way....
I guess that makes me a leader by default....

It is my patriotic duty to question my government...I intend to do my duty.  I will hold it accountable for what it does and does not do.  I will ask them why we need to send billions overseas while at the same time every level of government here is cutting back vital services such as police, fire and education.

You do not have to agree with me....that is your right.  All I ask is, make up your own -educated- mind... do not follow blindly because they are the supposed leaders....

I hope there will still be elections this year and next...perhaps we can get some new blood in there and wake them up to the fact that we do exist and we do count and are not to be dismissed as a 'focus group'.

End :soapbox: 

Peace.
:asian:


----------



## Cliarlaoch (Feb 20, 2003)

Hear Hear, Kaith.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *It is my patriotic duty to question my government...I intend to do my duty.  I will hold it accountable for what it does and does not do.   *



I agree to that!  Speak out, let your opinion be heard, vote...  That's what makes this country so great.



> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *I'll agree, Iraq had sanctions, NV did not, HOWEVER!, the argument being given is that IRAQ presents a Clear and Present Danger....my question is, N.V does not?  NV does not present a more apparent danger?  *



I hope you meant NK instead of NV 

Iraq does pose a threat, but I think the aim right now is that they didn't play nice a while back so the UN told them to disarm.  They have not.  So now we're trying harder to force them.  The UN has declared that they MUST disarm and is somewhat dragging it's feet to do so.  I think Bush is just getting fed up with the games and wants to see it come to a close.  Is the UN a world body with any control or does it just talk tough?

In North Korea's case, they have every right to have weapons to protect themselves, *nobody* has said otherwise... except that they signed a treaty which said they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons.  They violated that treaty and the UN is looking into sanctions for it.  It's less like a bad guy with a gun aimed at your head and more like a contract dispute.  The inspectors were allowed in the country in order to verify compliance with the treaty, not a mandate to verify they've disarmed.  We know they violated the treaty and therefore the inspectors being kicked out is not really an issue.  In Iraq's case, the UN sent in the inspectors to check for compliance with a UN resolution.  A very different circumstance.  

WhiteBirch


----------

