War Against Iraq?

[prudence]

Originally posted by Mike DeVuono


I did the Marine Corps, College, Nationally-ranked college rugby team, and the Marine Corps rugby team. All at once. It was alot though.

Prudence, there is no need to make excuses for not going into the military. You chose not too, I as well as most, will not look down at you. Quite frankly, I think the military would be better off without those who didn't want to be there. All they do is cause problems, get people hurt, etc.

I am not making excuses for not going into the military. I personally viewed the military as a waste of my time and my goals at that time. The military did not fit in with my plans. My point was that I was surrounded by folks who served and understood that it was not in my best interest to belong. That aside, I still would have excelled in the military. My values coincide with the values of the Armed Services.

[Chet]

Originally posted by prudence

My values coincide with the values of the Armed Services.

except for that little insubordination / taking delegated taks part....

just kidding!

[prudence]

Originally posted by bturk


except for that little insubordination / taking delegated taks part....

just kidding!

GUNS = POWER

[Chet]

Donald Rumsfeld describes to the Joint Chiefs the new tactic to oust Saddam from power. "We sneak up behind him and yell 'BOO! '"

[NHPlanner]

Originally posted by bturk


Oh gawd, I wish I had photoshop! nerudite, nhplanner, EG! A little help?

Ask, and you shall receive....

[Planderella]

OMG!!!!!!!

[el Guapo]

NHP,
Is he wearing a Manzier(TM) or is it a Sports Bro(TM)?





PS Prudence - When you kill bTurk in a fit of jusifiable rage I'll testify for you at sentencing.

[Dan]

A little gynecomastia, EG?

[SouthSideSlayer]

The real reason for a war against Iraq...

[SouthSideSlayer]

[Journeymouse]

With reference to how it looks to non-Americans. It generally looks like the good ol' US of A is throwing it's weight around just because it's the biggest kid in the playground. Obviously, everybody accepts that darling old Saddam is a major 'bar-steward' (try a very good standard english accent when you say it) and that some kind of military action will take place, if only as a display of muscle power. But jumping in straight away a la Dubya and his hawks makes it look as if Americans don't think that international law and due process aplies to them.

A more personal opinion goes along the lines of: Saddam is a former 'pet' warlord, as are or were many in the oil rich regions. The problem with the western nations playing like this (and I'm including Europe in this, we're all guilty!) is that we forget the long term implications, which are generally that the 'pet' in question has enough of being pushed around and bites back. They don't stand a chance against us, admittedly, but that doesn't make it right. <motivational speech>And I know that that is naive to think like this, and that there is very little that is good or honourable, but if I don't even try to stick to my ideals then I'm as bad as everyone who tells me to grow up. It's not important to change the world, it's important to try and be the best person that you can be.</motivational speech>

[Jeff]

Originally posted by prudence


I am not making excuses for not going into the military. I personally viewed the military as a waste of my time and my goals at that time. The military did not fit in with my plans. My point was that I was surrounded by folks who served and understood that it was not in my best interest to belong. That aside, I still would have excelled in the military. My values coincide with the values of the Armed Services.

For the record, I wasn't trying to pick a fight. Hope you didn't take it that way.

[troy]

Saddam needs to be removed, but there are a few things that bug me about the idea of going in and taking him out now:

1st- We were already in Iraq, with the support of numerous allies, we had already shattered his army, lost some of our people, and yet we didn't finish the job!--Going in now shouldn't even be a question, the man should have been removed a decade ago!

2nd-After we pulled out, we let the man slaughter our Kurdish "allies", and did nothing!

3rd-For a decade, we've let him ignore U.N. sanctions, alternate between allowing and forbidding weapon inspections, and take the occasional pot shot at fly overs, and did nothing!

Why is he such a threat today?

He's not doing anything that we haven't been allowing for the last decade, so the fact that we suddenly have our panties in a wad about him makes me think that G.W.Bush is looking for a boost in approval ratings or some other diversion. I don't trust our president's motives.

If we go in, there are some things that I expect to see, and that I hope we of the United States are prepared for:

A-Negative reaction from our middle eastern "allies". I don't know that any nation will join Iraq against us, but going in could easily start a regional conflict affecting every Islamic nation in the region from Morrocco to to Turkey and over to Pakistan.

B-Widespread terrorist actions by Fundamentalist "Muslim" Extremists-Not that there aren't going to be terrorist actions anyway, but since they can't match us in a stand-up fight, this will be the only avenue for reprisals and I think we'll see a lot more young men and women flocking to this cause

C-Media induced casualties-The media should never show footage of locations or report on where units are until well after the location is abandoned and the unit has moved

D-Combat Casualties and friendly fire-In order to do the job right, we'll have to send in ground troops to go in and clean up. Americans love artillery support and it works wonders, but at the end of the day, if you want to actually hold the ground or make sure your foe is defeated, you have to send in your sons, brothers, and fathers. That is when the enemy will be able to hit back, and that is when we will lose more American lives.

If we go in, finish the job!

If it lead's to a regional war, finish the job!

I'd rather there be peace, and I pray for peace every night. I'm not sure that peace is possible with all the saber rattling going on right now.

If there is war, then do it right, finish him completely, and plan on occupying Iraq for the next ten to twenty years while a new government and legal code is established...the occupation will be long (and bloody for us), but that kind of time frame is what would be necessary to raise a new generation with a new view of justice, law and government.

[Glomer]

The reason we are going in now, is that we have an excuse....we are fighting terrorism and any threat to the future safety of our country. I agree, we should have gone in already, but we would have had the same issues. (why now, it isn't our problem, let the UN take care of it)

I'll agree with the majority here in that Iraq isn't an immediate threat to us. But I do believe that as long as Saddam is in power, they will continue to try to be that threat. They might not be the country that it blamed for the next terrorist attack on teh U.S, but they will be linked somehow.

Bush showed me something from his speech at the UN. The UN is about as worthless a group as our cities web site committee. Lots of talk and no action. What is the point in their existence? Why should anyone follow their treaties.............Why are people mad that we don't. All it is is a piece of paper saying we will try not to cut down as many trees or make an attempt not to cause Global Warming which can't be proven because we haven't been taking statistics long enough to prove anything. (the worlds temp. goes in waves)........actually we should of signed the stupid thing to make everyone happy and not follow it anyway......as everyone else does.

I'm having a bad morning....

[Runner]

He's not doing anything that we haven't been allowing for the last decade,

True, but then 9-11 happened and the U.S. pulled its collective head out of its butt and realized that we can be intimately effected by Saddam's developments. Suddenly proliferation is here and now and we must act before the jeannie is completely out of the bottle.

All it is is a piece of paper saying we will try not to cut down as many trees or make an attempt not to cause Global Warming

Because we can't sign something that is so obviously against the "American way of life". If we all swear off our SUVs, McMansions, well watered desert lawns, farm flattening sprawl, etc then we can live by Kyoto. Until then at least these Government leaders are not going to sign something in such obvious bad faith. Now of course we could always bring Clinton back... or we could even move towards a more sustainable lifestyle...

[El Feo]

Themistocles v. Xerxes
Alexander v. Darius
Charles Martel v. Abd ar-Rahman
Don Juan v. Ali Pasha
Bush v. Saddam

This has been going on since Athens became a democracy. It's east versus west; democracy versus autocracy; free, deliberative, open, liberal (small "l") society against oppressive fascism, both secular and theocratic.

This is only my opinion, and I realize that most of you will probably disagree with me strongly, but It's not about oil, it's not about adverturism, and it's not about neo-imperialism. On the surface, it might look like it is, but arguments over that crap miss the point. This is about "them" hating "us" - and "us" includes even effete, democratic appeasers frozen into inaction by their tortured, pseudo-intellectual rationalizations and over-reliance on realpolitik - because we're free and as a result, we have what they want but can never have without stealing it. It's not about race, it's not about genetics, it's not about religion, it's about the fruits of having a free political culture and the complete absence of any fruits without one.

As for "why Iraq and not al-Qaeda," the answer is that if Iraq has it or is likely to get it (and let's face it, they have WMD now), then al-Qaeda has it or is likely to get it. In terms of the threat to the U.S., they're one in the same.

Nuts, I'm not making any sense, but what it boils down to for me is that while he may not be a worldly continental sophisticate, the simple arrogant cowboy in D.C. (and the 70% of us that support him on this for whatever reason) is right on this one.

[el Guapo]

El Feo - You win the Golden El Guapo Award for best post of the month for September.

[NHPlanner]

Originally posted by El Guapo
NHP,
Is he wearing a Manzier(TM) or is it a Sports Bro(TM)?

PS Prudence - When you kill bTurk in a fit of jusifiable rage I'll testify for you at sentencing.

Not going there....don't ask, don't tell. (nice Seinfeld reference btw) http://members.tripod.com/~whattt/THEBRO.WAV

[El Feo]

Originally posted by El Guapo
El Feo - You win the Golden El Guapo Award for best post of the month for September.

Is this like a Grammy (TM) or Oscar (TM), or is it something I should be proud of instead???

[el Guapo]

R.W.Reagan and Chuck Heston would be envious if they knew where they were. Its my own Conservative Planner version of Martha Stewart's "Its a good thing."

[troy]

[i]
As for "why Iraq and not al-Qaeda," the answer is that if Iraq has it or is likely to get it (and let's face it, they have WMD now), then al Qaeda has it or is likely to get it. In terms of the threat to the U.S., they're one in the same.

Yes, they have Weapons of Mass Destruction (I'm not sure what types...biological-yes, chemical-yes, nuclear-beats me!), but they've had two out of three for the last decade whether we could find them or not.

I would have been more impressed had we invaded Iraq the first time they kicked out the weapon's inspectors (I know... different president).

Right now, I'm just suspicious of the motive and timing...but I'm always suspicious of motive and timing any time a political leader says that its time for somebody else to lay down their life for our country.

Yes, Saddam has to go, but Iraq isn't the only nation that is likely to provide arms, money, training facilities and manpower to our enemies.

If we take out Saddam, then who's next, and when?

Is our nation ready for a long, drawn out conflict against Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, and probably against a number of nations that are marginally friendly towards us?

How about all of the Muslims living in America today? I know there are a lot of fringe "christian" groups in this country (Branch Davidians?), so I would be very surprised if there weren't fringe groups of "muslims", born in the U.S.A, who blend in perfectly with the rest of us, but who would take up arms if Jihad was called against us...again.

I don't think we are going to get away with a three month field trip into Iraq involving less than a quarter million soldiers after which things go back to normal, but that's the sort of projection I've heard.

When we open this can of worms, we'd better be able to finish it. There is too much at stake to do half a job of it like we've been doing for the last fifty years. To back down when the body-bags start coming home is only going to increase our troubles.

How far are we really willing to go?

[el Guapo]

Originally posted by troy
How far are we really willing to go?

As far as necessary to secure the blessings of liberty for all who want them.

Your arguments look like those people used in 1940 and 41 to keep the US out of WWII - Substitute the German or Japan for the moslems and Sadam and then re-read your post. Scary Huh?


Peace in our day Mr. Chamberlin?

[El Feo]

Originally posted by troy

If we take out Saddam, then who's next, and when?

We don't choose the enemy, he chooses himself. You're right that we choose the time, however.

Is our nation ready for a long, drawn out conflict against Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, and probably against a number of nations that are marginally friendly towards us?

See, that's the thing - post 9/11 there's no such thing as "marginally friendly." Just "friendly" and "NEXT."

How about all of the Muslims living in America today? I know there are a lot of fringe "christian" groups in this country (Branch Davidians?), so I would be very surprised if there weren't fringe groups of "muslims", born in the U.S.A, who blend in perfectly with the rest of us, but who would take up arms if Jihad was called against us...again.

When and if they crop up, we'll worry about them and deal with them - though I am skeptical this really is much of a worry.

I don't think we are going to get away with a three month field trip into Iraq involving less than a quarter million soldiers after which things go back to normal, but that's the sort of projection I've heard.

Well, it took about ten years for democracy to take in a Japan that in the immediate past had been an agressive, militant, Bushido-based theocracy. I'm willing to give Iraq that long after we're through with the "preliminaries" involving lots o' destruction.

When we open this can of worms, we'd better be able to finish it. There is too much at stake to do half a job of it like we've been doing for the last fifty years. To back down when the body-bags start coming home is only going to increase our troubles.

AMEN.

How far are we really willing to go?

See above.

[troy]

Originally posted by El Guapo


Your arguments look like those people used in 1940 and 41 to keep the US out of WWII - Substitute the German or Japan for the moslems and Sadam and then re-read your post. Scary Huh?

Peace in our day Mr. Chamberlin?

Maybe the arguments look the same, but I think its worth weighing the costs and benefits of an action before deciding whether something is worth a human life. At the moment, Saddam is "contained", and we can have this discussion. We already kicked him out of Czcheckoslovakia, now we are deciding whether to move on Berlin while he's licking his wounds.

What bugs me isn't so much the idea of going after Iraq, but the possibility that we won't do it right.

Even after we committed to WW2, our refusal to allocate sufficient manpower to the war effort right from the start resulted in an unnecessarily high casualty rate amongst our fighting men.

If we are going to start this fight (and the more I look at this issue, the more I am in favor of military action), then we cannot delude ourselves into thinking its going to be easy, bloodless, or that the enemy isn't going to hit us back, here at home, and in a way that hurts.

We could get lucky. Maybe nobody will rise to support Iraq. Maybe American casualties will be light. Maybe terrorists won't hit us in our home towns.

I'd rather see us prepared for the worst than hoping for the best.