DO YOU THINK PRESIDENT BUSH MADE HIS CASE FOR WAR WITH IRAQ?

I voted NO to your poll, I do think we should do it anyway.

May our friends in the middle east .

I think the "case" was made yeterday when Dr. Hans Blix made his presentation to the UN. Enough is enough.. Damn world opinion, Iraq's leadership must fall!!! I just hope this Bush takes care of the problem this time unlike his father who bowed to the rest of the world and didn't take that piece of [Bleeeeep!] Sadaam 12 years ago. I would hate to see this to continue to happen every decade or so. God Bless our Women and Men in Uniform!!!!


And you say Tactical Nuclear warfare like it's a bad thing!!!!! Glass is good, although drinking beer out of Nuclear made glass might make ya glow!!!!!

Why did you vote no and in the same reply say you think we should do it anyway?

I don't think Pres. B. made his case. Just my opinion.

I'm with EZ, Bush didn't make his case - same old thing, all rhetoric, no substance. I'm also with EZ and will support our troops 100% if they go, and I want Saddam as dead as anyone else. I just want enough real goods on him to make it obvious that we should go now and not later, and I want it so obvious that the rest of the world, or at least the important parts, are with us. Let's hope Colin Powell has got the goods when he presents at the UN next week

This time its personnal

Bush stated that Sadaam Hussein as ties with Al Qeida!!!!!!
Do You remember what regime was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center?

I am not saying we should NOT go to war with Iraq. We should go over there and kick their A**!

I don't think Bush made his case in his address.

So EZ and Spawnout,

When Bush stated that we have intelligence that Hussein has ties with the Al Qeida network that was'nt enough for you?

Bush says a lot of things. However, he didn't make his case. If you listen close you'll hear that his experts "estimate" things and Hussein "may" be capable of this and that. No solid proof.

The Al Qeida has ties with every Muslim country over there, not to mention the fact that they get some of their money from right here in the good ol' US of A.

There are more dangerous countries out there than just Iraq. The fact we're singling them out smacks of oil interests.

Personally I don't like any of the Muslim countries; I don't like their human rights issues. However, I don't think we should go over there and getl a lot of our brave men and women in uniform killed for no good reason. And especially without the backing of the UN. This is not a good time, financially, to become a rogue nation. And don't think the UK is going to help us much when we're broke.

No, Bush's speech just did not convince me.

You are all entitled to your own opinions and I respect that, but I believe are president would not bring up the knowledge of intelligence that we have gathered that Hussein has ties with terrorist networks. Let's be serious I highly dought due to security reasons that our pres is going to go into detail about how and who he obtained this info from, but we need to trust that he will guide us. and we will move forward a strong and SAFE nation.

Bush did not make a case for our going over there and dropping bombs and putting us at greater risk in the future. The polls have shown that 71 percent of the American people don't want us to go it alone.

Here is a "Funny Parody on a grave pending situation".....Do you know the old song "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands"? Someone ( I don't know who ) started the idea of putting new political charged words to the tune. I've rewritten it to go as follows. Feel free to a pass it along if you wish. Even though the subject is grave, I hope it makes you laugh. - John Robbins


If you cannot find Osama, bomb Irag.
If the markets are a drama, bombb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Lets look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-agression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me,
'Cos it's all the proof I need,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
( And he tried to kill your dad )
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showing', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your man hood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make was not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Hope you enjoyed it:) lol

Very nice. Can you say "American Idol"?

American Idiot!!!!

One thing that is interesting is how the typical liberal criticizes the current administration for dealing with Iraq, but didn't criticize Clinton when he ordered Iraq to be bombed. Also, Iraq has received billions in the oil for food program, but the vast majority of these funds have been spent on military while thousands of Iraq's citizens starved. The people of Iraq are well educated and have much potential once their leader is gone. They have oil, which will be instrumental in rebuilding their country. Ever heard a Clinton support explain why this country was attacked 5 times in 8 years with no adequate response?? Hide your head in the sand doens't make the threat disappear. Inaction only allows the threat (WMD as well as terrorist) to grow stronger. I support a golden missile blasting Saddam and his inner leaders and not harming anyone else.

John Lee ....


Funny as hell, BUT ya have too much time on yer hands

One thing that is interesting is how the typical liberal criticizes the current administration for dealing with Iraq, but didn't criticize Clinton when he ordered Iraq to be bombed. Also, Iraq has received billions in the oil for food program, but the vast majority of these funds have been spent on military while thousands of Iraq's citizens starved. The people of Iraq are well educated and have much potential once their leader is gone. They have oil, which will be instrumental in rebuilding their country. Ever heard a Clinton support explain why this country was attacked 5 times in 8 years with no adequate response?? Hide your head in the sand doens't make the threat disappear. Inaction only allows the threat (WMD as well as terrorist) to grow stronger. I support a golden missile blasting Saddam and his inner leaders and not harming anyone else.

This BB is pretty representative of the country. The Republicans stand and cheer and the Democrats sit and scowl.

grandpa,

That is, of course, unless we had a democrat for president...

Then the democrats would stand and cheer, and the republicans would sit and scowl.


YOUR president in office... (Whichever "your" happens to be)

THEIR president in office...

Same ol' partisan BS as usual...

Fish on...

Todd.

I personally voted no. Not that I wouldn't like to see Saddam get his @$$ kicked, but I don't think we're going to war for the right reasons. Why are we going to war? Because Saddam might have weapons? So might many countries that we wouldn't like having them. Take North Korea for instance. They're looking to get nukes, if they don't have them already. I don't see us mongering to go to war with them. IMHO, the reason why Bush wants war so badly is to take peoples' attention off the sorry state of affairs at home, and to 'fix' what his daddy started. We all live in this state. We know what the economy is like here. It's $#!+. Layoffs left and right, companies threatening to leave, people losing their benefits, or worse. What better way to wag the dog by distracting people than going to war with someone everyone hates, and at the same doing what his dear old dad failed to do 10 years ago? In my opinion, those aren't good enough reasons to go to war. We should focus on spending money at home to help get the economy out of its downward spiral, not spending billions of dollars bombing some third world country into the ground.

The case for taking out Sadam Hussein was made years ago. He is a brutal tyrant. He should have been dealt with a long time ago, and it's our fault for not finishing the job. He should have assumed room temperature over a decade ago. I'm bored an tired with all of this concensus cr*p. The rest of the world doesn't wait for concensus when they come knocking on the door for aid and food for their people. Why is it that most of them run for cover, unless their rumps are hanging out in the wind. Then the big, bad, evil, greedy Americans come marching in to save the day.

If/when we go to war, we owe it to our troops to support them 100% without fail. We are blessed to have fine young men and women in our armed forces to help protect our country and our interests abroad. Right, wrong, or indifferent, sack up and support our troops

On the other hand, we can wait for Iraq for to fully develop a full blown nuke or biological weapon, provide it to some terrorists, to unleash another round of terror on our country. I fully believe that Bin Laden and his cronies in (Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Kuwait, along with numerous other countries) would love the opportunity. Then we'll be b*tching about how we didn't do anything.

The bottom line is it is very easy to sit back in a chair and be critical of people who make decisions. You always have history, to say judge what could have been done. If it's a Republican/Democrat thing, then get off your A**, and vote at every local, state, and national election. Then you have the right to biatch. Our forefathers died to give you that right.

I'm done rambling now. Too much damn coffee this morning.

The democrats did not take Bin Ladden for what he was worth,let him bomb our embassys and even blow a whole in the Cole.What did the democrats do?Launch one stinking missle and say I am sorry I missed.Clinton was more interested in getting gays in the military than he was in protecting this country.

I for one am not willing to let any terrorist make any threasts and get away with it.You threaten us you pay the price.This sitting around and talking about is for the weak and america is not weak!I will stand behind both our soldiers and our pres. on this.

Todd....Well said...same ol partisan BS...Some opinions are soooo predictable. Oh geez Tom Daschle is on the news...I better go and see what an objective comment he has.

It's time to go in with guns a blazin'. We should have too Sadam from power in 91, then again in 95, then again in 98.....enough is enough! I didn't see the address unfortunately so I can't really say if Bush made his case or not, but the case has been made for sometime now!

A few thoughts that I've had:

I think you have to consider that this was a state of the union speech. As such, presidents use them to outline their vision of where the country is and what policies they want to initiate in the future. It's not a forum to go into great detail on what our "proof" is. But I do think the president articulated as well as I have heard Saddam's duplicity vis a vis the UN resolutions since the Gulf War. 108 inspectors are NOT going to find these weapons that Saddam has refused to account for. Unless he comes clean he remains in violation of the surrender terms that he signed at the end of the gulf war. So the question becomes, if he is not in compliance, what is the UN going to do about it? Is it a legitimate organization or just talk?

I think we need to wait and hear what Powell will present to the Security Console on Feb 5th. And I do think the US needs to do what it deems neccesary for it's national interests and security. We can't let the likes of France and Germany dictate to us what our national interests are.

Regarding Korea, one crisis at a time! That situation is very different from Iraq and needs to be handled a different way. Lets face it, the risk to S Korea is immense and it will require a different approach from Iraq.

I too, am puzzled as to why when Clinton blasted Iraq with cruise missiles and fixed wing planes a few years back, there were virtually NO protests in the streets. He did it without UN approaval and was condeemed in the UN, yet we saw no marching in the streets. But Bush trys to work with the UN and the protesters take to the streets. Must be a partisan thing...

On a final note, what did you think of Gov. Locke? I thought he looked like a used car salesman. That goofy grin and fake sincerity was embarassing.

I believe the reason Clinton got away with bombing Iraq is because he did it much less low-key than Bush is doing. Clinton didn't do the "war" thing. But it is a different situation. Bush is trying to rally the UN and other nations to war... the key word being "war." It's given the protestors too much time to organize, rationalize, hypothosize, and criticize.

If Bush would have attacked this situation from a different front, more convertly, he would have won over the American people, and other nations, more easily.

I agree, but covert operations aren't going to take Saddam out. It takes time to build up an invasion force. I think we can all agree that if Bush hadn't started rattling the sabres and building up an invasion force Saddam would have done what he has done all these years - nothing. Dictators only recognize and are intimidated by one thing - power.

CFM, nice post. We are in a unique time in history, America is the Rome of it's age. But unlike Rome, we temper our strength with responsibilty. Let us pray it always be so.

CFM said it all!

They march in the streets calling for death to America. We march in the streets calling for no war with Iraq.

If they could do it, they would do it. They being those in Iraq calling for death to America. It being an act of terror killing thousands of Americans. We can't afford that risk.

The President was right when he said that trusting in Saddamm is not a strategic policy and it's also not an option. The President was right when he said that America goes to war with a heavy heart knowing the price to be paid. We didn't pick this fight but we are going to finish it.

btw, well said hawk and cwf.

The speech was very moving. I don't think anyone's opinion changed. Those that were opposed to the Presidents point of view remain opposed, on all issues. I saw some get up and walk out (of the neighborhood pub;)) with their preformed ideas without even taking time to listen.

I believe that the case will be made, without doubt, as to what our course of action should, and will be on the 5th of February.

In regards to Mr. Locke's rebuttal, I couldn't help but think he seemed like the Oxen (Water Buffalo) in Apocolypse now. You remember that don't you?

In regards to Mr. Locke's rebuttal, I couldn't help but think he seemed like the Oxen (Water Buffalo) in Apocolypse now. You remember that don't you?

From someone in Oregon, I thought the Demo's choice for a 'rebuttle' speach was very strange, very strange indeed. Understand Locke's a very likeable guy, but given he's never held political office outside of Wash. State (Gov. or no), has zero foreign experience, etc., ..... very strange indeed.

President Bush strikes me as a mediocre man trying to be great. He is using a war with Iraq as his vehicle to go down as a great leader of the world. He chose Iraq because of several things. One, his military advisors tell hem he can win quickly. Two, he said it himself. Hussein tied to kill his daddy. Revenge. Three, control the oil you control the economy. He is trying to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons, a mediocre leader trying to be great.

No, I do not think Bush made his case for war against IRAK during this speech. I'm with EZ on this one.

Now, that being said, I DO think the Administration will de-classify information this week (or early next week) that WILL make his case.

From what I've been has been reported, it's almost a given that the US has classified intelligence that backs up what the UN weapons inspectors are saying - and that is that IRAK is hiding it's weapons and not being honest.

If that can be proven, than that's a violation of the UN Mandate. That get's my vote to go in and take out good ol' Sammy Houston in IRAK.

What troubled me the most about the speech was what Bush DIDN'T say to the US people.

What are the direct consequences if we do go to war?

It's estimated that if we wage war with IRAK, we will need to stay in that country for at least 5-7 (once the current regime is gone) years to stabilize and protect the new regime. Cost is estimated at 200+ billion, if not more! Ouch.

I don't think it is a matter of proving sadaam has weapons of mass destruction. We already knew that. Its up to sadaam to prove that he has destroyed those weapons. He is clearly skirting the issue. At what point do we take action against sadaam? Is it when a few thousand Americans die from a weapon that was created or bought from him? Or do we put a stop to now. It is called having a good offense. We will be going to war, now is the time to support our commander and chief, and the thousands of troops that he leads.


GOD BLESS AMERICA!! just my opinion

Oh yea I am new to this board. Hello everyone

Hello, Desert Rat.

Welcome to Political Pursuits' discussion board.

We need to definatly go in NOW and do away with the maggot! Im very suprised that more
american people are not standing by their president. What do people think Saddam has been doing the last 12 years, underwater basket weaving?! Lets get real If anyone is a good judge of this charicter is doesen't take a rocket scientist to figure out he has weapons of mass destruction and is just waiting for the right time to use them.He needs one between the eyes NOW!

Yo Ed,

That's the thing that makes America truly great. You are allowed to disagree with the president, and not end up dead or in prison. Just because someone may disagree with the way a foreign policy issue is handled, doesn't mean that they're any less patriotic than those who would follow blindly and not question.

Best part of being an American is you can disagree or jump on the band wagon with what our leaders are feeding us, Kind of like the biters in the rivers. He is a bad dude and hurts a lot of his own people in more ways than one, but how many of those good people will we have too kill to get him and will the country pull togrther for the leaders we install. Will it be a better place or more of the same or worst, who can really answer that? What about the other evil men leading thier countries, should we go get them? I didnt agree with Clinton on a lot of his foreign policy and I dont agree with this at this time, but if we go GOD BLESS OUR MEN AND WOMEM

I don't think he even tried to make his case, I suspect he has already done that.

RE. The Demos. put the most eneffectual (sp) person (IMHO) they could find to refute him cause they are convinced something has to be done about the ******* (sadam).

CWF said it for me!

Its a very scary time in my book.

I'm not concerned about the $$$ it's gonna cost if we go, I'm concerned about the price we pay if we dont do something

9/11 was way too much, I don't want to wait till we see the smoking gun.

For some reason I don't think it's all about oil!

God Help Us either way......please!

herm

the bottom line is if you can't stand behind our president, and you think that saddam is telling the truth, then you should go live in iraq, or some other country cause you dont belong here. "IF YOU DON'T LOVE IT, LEAVE IT!".

MAY THEIR ARMPITS BE INFESTED WITH THE FLEAS OF A THOUSAND CAMELS!!!!!!!

I believe the U.S. is more active in the sponse to Iraq than North Korea is due to the danger. North Korea is broke, run down and pretty much a hell hole. The people have relegated to eating bark off trees in the winter due to starvation. The Chinese military has had to use their military to stop immigration form North Korea. Mostly, North Korea wants to have a bargaining chip with the U.S. , so the nuclear issue is thier ticket. The have always posed a threat and have always issued their silly blabbering propaganda about how great their country is and the evils of the United States. Sadly, this garbage has been the only information their people have been exposed to for the last 50 years.

As far as Iraq, there's no doubt they will use their capabilites and uleash WMD upon the world. Therefore, they must be dealt with.

As far as intelligence, no need to show all of it due to loss of sources. One of the bozos in Congress was briefed about the NSA being able to monitor cell phones of known terrorist and the information gathered. The idiot Congressman, and I don't recall which one, blabbed this to the press. Guess what?? They quit using the phones and no more info.

As far and the economy, does anyone really think the Federal Governemnt can simply flip a swith and creat jobs and reduce unemployment totally?? The economy will take time to recover due to overcapacity for production as well as inventory. Additionally, corporate crime has accounted for many of the problems. I do fault the current administration for not being more aggressive in cleaning up corporate crime as well as active legisaltion to prevent it, since the former administration did nothing about this. The government has lowered intrest rates, increased government spending (good or bad) and has also produced tax cuts. This is classic economics and really isn't mcuh more to do. The leadership fo this state could do more to help the economy than the Fed Gov could.

I believe the U.S. is more active in the sponse to Iraq than North Korea is due to the danger. North Korea is broke, run down and pretty much a hell hole. The people have relegated to eating bark off trees in the winter due to starvation. The Chinese military has had to use their military to stop immigration form North Korea. Mostly, North Korea wants to have a bargaining chip with the U.S. , so the nuclear issue is thier ticket. The have always posed a threat and have always issued their silly blabbering propaganda about how great their country is and the evils of the United States. Sadly, this garbage has been the only information their people have been exposed to for the last 50 years.

As far as Iraq, there's no doubt they will use their capabilites and uleash WMD upon the world. Therefore, they must be dealt with.

As far as intelligence, no need to show all of it due to loss of sources. One of the bozos in Congress was briefed about the NSA being able to monitor cell phones of known terrorist and the information gathered. The idiot Congressman, and I don't recall which one, blabbed this to the press. Guess what?? They quit using the phones and no more info.

As far and the economy, does anyone really think the Federal Governemnt can simply flip a swith and creat jobs and reduce unemployment totally?? The economy will take time to recover due to overcapacity for production as well as inventory. Additionally, corporate crime has accounted for many of the problems. I do fault the current administration for not being more aggressive in cleaning up corporate crime as well as active legisaltion to prevent it, since the former administration did nothing about this. The government has lowered intrest rates, increased government spending (good or bad) and has also produced tax cuts. This is classic economics and really isn't mcuh more to do. The leadership fo this state could do more to help the economy than the Fed Gov could.

I believe the U.S. is more active in the sponse to Iraq than North Korea is due to the danger. North Korea is broke, run down and pretty much a hell hole. The people have relegated to eating bark off trees in the winter due to starvation. The Chinese military has had to use their military to stop immigration form North Korea. Mostly, North Korea wants to have a bargaining chip with the U.S. , so the nuclear issue is thier ticket. The have always posed a threat and have always issued their silly blabbering propaganda about how great their country is and the evils of the United States. Sadly, this garbage has been the only information their people have been exposed to for the last 50 years.

As far as Iraq, there's no doubt they will use their capabilites and uleash WMD upon the world. Therefore, they must be dealt with.

As far as intelligence, no need to show all of it due to loss of sources. One of the bozos in Congress was briefed about the NSA being able to monitor cell phones of known terrorist and the information gathered. The idiot Congressman, and I don't recall which one, blabbed this to the press. Guess what?? They quit using the phones and no more info.

As far and the economy, does anyone really think the Federal Governemnt can simply flip a swith and creat jobs and reduce unemployment totally?? The economy will take time to recover due to overcapacity for production as well as inventory. Additionally, corporate crime has accounted for many of the problems. I do fault the current administration for not being more aggressive in cleaning up corporate crime as well as active legisaltion to prevent it, since the former administration did nothing about this. The government has lowered intrest rates, increased government spending (good or bad) and has also produced tax cuts. This is classic economics and really isn't mcuh more to do. The leadership fo this state could do more to help the economy than the Fed Gov could.

I do believe our president. I believe in our president. I also believe in what our president is doing. Saddam has committed mass murders. He will again if not stopped. Nuff said.

Here's a little something for the people whom think that all of Europe is against going into Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-559907,00.html

I'm glad to see at least some of the countries over there are realizing what is really taking place in Iraq and appreciate what the U.S. has done in the past...

Here it is: Bush is failing miserbly at home, the economy sucks, he is an idiot and the elections are coming soon so he needs something to distract the voting public. Ah yes a war with Iraq to distract us all while we are waving our flags and putting our Millitary personel in harms way. All I know is I don't want to see one Kid come home in a bag. We should have finished the job the first time.
[Bleeeeep!] all the republicans and there own agenda. take care of **** at home first before you go playing bully around the world.
Peace Superfly

Yeah what Superfly said. We'll get a real winner when either Lieberman, Sharpton, Daschle or John Kerry become President. Then things will be all better. Fo Big Al.

NO I don't think he made his case for war with Iraq. I think he is obsessed to find any excuse to finish the war his dad started and get Sad dam.

Bush talks about lowering taxes but then talks about spending more money. This equals deficits.

According to STS the Bush administration is responsible for killing 30,000 Chinook on the Klamath river last summer. Didn't let enough water flow in the river during the summer. Diverted the water for irrigation.

I just couldn't help myself after reading the second page of posts...

Too many people treat politics as if is was a team sporting event. They pick their team, either demo or republican, and support their team no matter what. It doesn't matter if you have a Daryl Strawberry on your team as long as he helps you win. And winning isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing. I find it amazing how many people support their party to the bitter end even if is contrary to their own best interest. Examples that come to mind are women's groups supporting Clinton or fiscal conseratives supporting Bush.

In my opinion the democratic party truly represents the far left 10% of the population, and the republican party represents the far right 10% of the population. The middle 80% are truly not represented. We just get to cheer or jeer "our" team.

There are a lot of people that think like superfly. That is how Bagdad Jim just won re-election with a 76% approval.

Superfly's post is extremely shallow and tacky.

For him to imply that he has the wisdom to sum up all the "facts" of this complicated issue in one paragraph is ridiculous. (I suppose that 9/11 was Bush's fault).

But most of all, his blanket insult of ALL Republicans is about as rude and inflammatory as you can get.

Then he closes with "PEACE". How ludicrious.


I will make a point to avoid the products he advertises (are our PP posts supposed to have advertisements?). Does he work at a takle store or something? I would like to know so I can avoid that too.

Hey Loco Dingo you are absoluteley right, most of us go un represented in D,C because most of theses political figures have there own agendas
And someone else stated that people treat politics like there sports team is absolutely right, whether they like what they are doing or not they stay woth them until the bitter end.
I cannot believe some of the responses on here
So Slabquest , did you ever strap on a uniform? Did you ever serve? Dosen't sound like it. Why don't you put you or your kids over there and then tell me what you think about going to war over something that right now is still not clear. When Bush's cabinet is divided over the thought of war with Iraq then there is something wrong. Georgey just wants his war to save his ass
Also no one could have stopped 9/11 there were no safeguards in place to stop that kind of thing so be real. It would not have mattered who was in office. Also my remarks were not at all inflamatory to the republican party, just my opinion. Look at it this way, What have the republicans done for you? well they have not done a damm thing for me except make living in this great country a little tougher these days

Peace Superfly

I wore a uniform, my father wore a uniform, and my son wares one now, ( special forces at Ft Bragg). He has been to Afganistan, and will go to Iraq. At the moment I cannot support the expected war, but I support the troops 100%.

Superfly

There are several good reasons to go in to Iraq, none of which has anything to do with our current econimic state. Iraq is a threat to our national security. Disarming Iraq isn't something that the republicans just thought they might like to do for fun, or to divert attention. In fact Pres Clinton said himself a year and a half before he left office that there would need to be regime change in Iraq and that they are a threat to us. So don't try and make this a patisian issue.

One other note Bush 41 didn't take out Saddam or impose regime change in 91 because that wasn't part of the U.N. resolution. We were sent to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, thats it! If he had gone and gotten Saddam guys like you would have been calling him a rogue and saying we should follow the U.N.

I fully agree with BW. I might not support our President, his administration, and their decision to go to war. But, if that does happen, I'll fully support our troops!

Oh, and don't worry about the cost issue on my previous post. I see the US has come up with a way to fund this war!

That's a fine piece of logic; Should of done it then - after we promised the UN we would not and we were not militarily set-up for it, instead of now when we have the opposite situation. I guess if we would have done it then, there wouldn't be any body bags?

Aunty: "supposedly" insulted? I suggest a re-read. Maybe you have way thicker skin than me.

Man some people To BW I hope and pray for your sons well being, I know they did a great Job In afgahnistan and I hope they( the people in charge) do not hang any of our special ops guys out to dry. Is your son a ranger, a green beret or with one of the special forces groups?
I think if you asked anyone on here there all going to support or troops 110 % , thats not the problem, the problem people have is with the politicians defining there reasons for doing what they do. 99 % of the time they are speaking out of both sides of there mouth and lying to us as much as that MFer Hussien is lying to them. So it will be interesting to see where the chips fall and how much support we have worldwide when we go into Iraq.
Peace Superfly

General Norman Schwarzkopf stated to the world during an interview on CNN right after the Republican Guard was decimated leaving Kuwait. "There is nothing between me and Baghdad." I think if he would have had his way Saddam would be dead or exiled.

You are so Right Kerry, I would have loved to see us march into Bag-Dad in 1991, the middle east would be a different place today, and most likely someone would have capped Saddam's sorry ass !!!!!!

Peace Superfly

I think it would be better to pay the Price now, than the Cost later.

If we had removed the Taliban and Al -Queda before 9/11 the Cost would have been much less than the Price we paid.

Lets not be Timid. Remove Saddam and his regime.

Let us all hope that the information presented next week will be convincing and we can stop arguing amongst ourselves.

Thanks Superfly. He is airborne.

By the way, Superfly I hope you did not think that I was implying that you did not support our troops..That did not even cross my mind. Sorry if that is what you thought.

Superfly,

Oldest son is Marine Corp grunt. Leaves for the Gulf Ides of March. Third generation warrior.

I was 101st, every generation of my family has served since they arrived here from Russia at the turn of the century. Several gave there lives for this great country. They were always the first to sign up and volunteer no matter when or what it was for. Several of my great uncles kept getting turned down because they could not speak english well enough, finally the marines took them in, they both won medals for valor on Iwo Jima, of the four that served there only two of them made it home.
I just hope and Pray for every service man and woman.
Parker , that Rules , nice looking plane, but I would like to see what sponsors adorn the f-14 tomcat or f-15 eagle

All I know is that I have one son and only one son and I would have difficulty as it is now letting him go over there, when all the facts come out will see who is really playing ball

peace Superfly

If any one thinks that GW is sitting around and dreaming of how to get sadaam because of some grudge, they need to go back to govt class. We are going into iraq because we have the evidence sadaam has not destroyed his weapons. We have had the evidence for a long time now and everyone knows it. The fact is not does he have weapons, it is has he destroyed them. It was up to sadaam to prove that he has, which he certainly has not. He poses a threat to us, his people,and other nations. There are alot more people involved in descion making than GW.
As for GW doing anything about the economy, what can he do? This country was heading in a recession when Clinton left office. Its not up to the president to fix the economy, its up to the people of this country to step up start spending. Big buisiness and small buisiness is what runs this countrys economy, not GW.


At what point do we stop our humanitarian aid? Do not the people of Iraq deserve to be free of oppression and have the right speak thier minds? Well sadaam has done some horrible things to the people in his country, and its time to put a stop to it. Not to mention the threat he poses to the people of this world.

The only reason people go unnoticed in D.C is because they dont make the extra effort to be heard. Get involved.

just my opinions and thank God we live in a country that we have the freedom of expression!!!!!!!!

Parker

What no Vision sponsor on the plane? :p

The mention of being “unpatriotic” is complete crap. Blindly following a politician without question is unpatriotic. Questioning a politician's every move is extremely patriotic. It shows you care about the direction of this country. Especially when that politician is talking war.

We went to Iraq as part of a U.S. led coalition at the direction of the U.N. We were tasked with kicking Iraq out of Kuwait and back to Bagdad but go no further. We have been tasked since then with containment. The U.N. has been tasked with the disarmament not the U.S.
However, the U.S. is now tasking itself, without U.N. approval, to almost single handedly over throw the Iraqi government based upon a complete and sudden change in U.S. policy to one of pre-emptive strike. This sets several dangerous precedents. One is the fact that we are going against the U.N. Will this mean the U.N. is now null and void? The second is the pre-emptive strike precedent. All countries will now be able to use our new policy against their neighbors and we really cannot, with a clear conscience, object. Want to invade a country? Now's your chance. They might some day be a danger to you otherwise.
There has been a lot of talk about Iraq being linked to terrorism but no proof. In fact there has been a lot of innuendos in general without a shred of evidence produced. If you choose to believe these without seeing proof then that's your business. Some project 100,000 casualties. I'd rather see some more solid evidence that convinces the U.N. before we inflict that upon innocent civilians and start our own body bag count. I think we are owed that.
There has also been a lot of propaganda about the evil dictator who uses weapons of mass destruction on his own people. A lot of the evil being cited was actually performed while Iraq was our ally and we were arming them and training them. We deny knowledge of any of the evil at that time. Do you really believe we didn't know? Of course he's an evil dictator. He was when he was playing on our team too. I'm not defending him one bit. But I don't buy into the propaganda being fed to us much either. We were in bed with him. Now we are not. I wonder what really happened to change that?
It seems that this is being rolled into the “war on terrorism”. If we are truly trying to prevent terrorism this sure doesn't seem to be the way. I believe terrorist attacks will increase immensely when we go in and probably won't cease for the rest of our lives.
Also, just what you want to do with a caged animal. Go into his cage and threaten him. Think he'll unleash everything he's got and not just at us? You bet. He has nothing to lose at that point.
Finally, this could possibly trigger world war three. Who knows how many countries and factions are waiting for us to go in so that they can make moves in their own best interests. And, they have pre-emptive strike justification now thanks to us. There is China/Taiwan, all Arab countries/Israel, India/Pakistan, escalation in Afghanistan, possibly renewed war in Yugoslavia, the Koreas, who knows what Iran is capable of.
Rumsfield claims we can fight a war on two fronts. Another dumb thing to say, as it turned out, but he really should have said three fronts. Or did he forget about Afghanistan? It seems like the entire administration has forgot about that country. Where's Bin Laden? Or maybe it's five fronts?
Bush, so far, has made many foreign policy blunders. I have my doubts that he can get this one right.
What probably should have happened when the U.N. failed to sanction an attack is we gather up our toys and go home. We have no business being there any more. Or do we?
In almost every major political situation all you need to do is follow the money to see the truth. Maybe this is really only about lining Bush/Cheney pals pockets (Halliburton) while having the tax payer once again foot the bill for it…some paying the ultimate price.
If congress hadn't let itself get caught up in miss-guided patriotism and had not ceded it's authority to wage war to one single politician then maybe it would be a requirement to show us all the facts around the case for going to war or at least I'd feel better about it knowing that a lot of decision makers are involved instead of only one who's track record isn't very good on such matters thus far.
If the U.N. isn't convinced by the "facts" on 02/05 I sure won't be.

Right on cowlitzfisherman!!!!!

Ahh CFM,

Getting your blood pressure elevated again I see.

The President has certain executive powers at his disposal granted him by the Constitution. The senate vote was a resolution supporting the descision to use military force if deemed necessary. It wouldn't matter if 100% of senators voted to give GW special wartime powers. ALL of Congress (House and Senate) would have to pass this by majority in order for those powers to legally take effect. An official declaration of war is also something that is done by Congress.

Since only 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for election every 2 years, how would you suggest that we vote out enough Senators to remove the majority that supported the resolution?

Issues of war are pretty much NEVER decided by popular opinion. If they were, our involvement in Viet Nam would have ended years earlier than it did.

Again, as I stated before, just because someone disagrees with the course of action that our current president appears about to take, DOES NOT mean that they love their country or support the troops ANY LESS than those who want to march in and leave a smoking hole where Iraq used to be.

p.s. Excellent post stlhead. Now if all of the flag waving and Battle Hym of the Republic playing would stop long enough for people to see your logic, then maybe.... well we could only hope.

If the US military moves into Baghdad to annilate Saddam and thousands of innocent Iraq citizens die because of it, are we any better than the 9/11 hijackers?

BD

Stlhead....we are the USA and a member country in the UN, but that doesn't necessarily mean we must always do what the UN dictates. There are a lot of people in this country who do not think the US should be a part of the UN, so saying we should fall in line behind what the UN tasks us to do does not necessarily reflect the sentiment of the majority.

With regard to the evidence everyone is looking for, I think we already have it and its more a matter of how much of it can we release. The facts thus far are that Saddam hasn't done what he said he was going to do 10 years ago and he is not doing what he said he was going to do now. Why should we ever believe he is going to? Why should we ever believe he won't invade a neighboring country again or kill off a bunch of his own people? Most importantly why should we believe he won't try his damndest to harm the US if given half a chance? History shows he has the inclination to commit any one of the atrocities. I believe we had all the evidence we needed when he threw weapons inspectors out of Irag a long time ago and I have no doubts the US will present evidence to make its case now.

BTW....just went back and read all the other posts. Mostly good ones, a few bad ones. I'll also add that dealing with Iraq is a problem that spans both political parties.

Super Fly,

When do you think the situation in Iraq should be addressed? When the French say so?

Or do you think we (the world) should wait to see if these weapons are used against us?

Should we wait untill a scud missle delivers anthrax to Israel?

Should we wait untill we see if sadam will use a nuke on Turkey?

Should we wait untill we see a picture of sadam handing a vial of nerve gas to the al quaida? And then check the signatures on the receipts to make sure who it was?

I don't want to see anybody come home in a body-bag, my kid, your kid, or some Iraqi kid.

But I would like to know just when, or if ever,
you think the situation should be addressed.

Obviously you are a patriot, that has not been a ? in my mind.

The statement of ([Bleeeeep!] the Republicans) doesn't
seem like a solution to the problem. But I don't know for sure. We could try it. (If the U.N. says it's ok)

I'm the kind of guy who changes his mainline a couple times a season, change my oil every 5 or 6,000 miles, buys new tires before I have a blow-out.

I wish we could- JUST- take care of things at home!

I don't have any for sure answers, if waiting a couple more months or years,or untill we have a SMOKING GUN would take care of the problem, then I'm all for it.

I wish Gore had been elected, then we wouldn't be in a mess like this.


herm

herm

stlhead

That was a truly great post. Thank you for standing up for humanity and reason. The majority of America think's a lot like you and so does the rest of the World. Mandela's made a speech today that is very similar to your post regarding the role of the U N and how we are being seen around the World as being too Arrogant and hostile toward it ( the U N ).

John,
I disagree.
JMS

WOW.....I'm going fishing

grandpa

Where?

We are just behind you!

Cowlitzfisherman

Herm, your statement about Gore being President we wouldn't have this problem was the best entertainment I have heard in a long while. If he was president, we would have continued to do nothing after 9/11, just like the two idiots Clinotn and Gore did for 8 years. This country was attacked 5 times when they were in office and we did absolutely nothing. Gore would have most likely invited Bin Laden to the White House for dinnner if he could have gotten any money out of it. You friends Clinton and Gore and their cronies did everything they could to destroy the military, FBI as well as the CIA .

P.S. Can you get your friend Al Gore to fix the internet, the newest virus is causing problems.

Herm, your statement about Gore being President we wouldn't have this problem was the best entertainment I have heard in a long while. If he was president, we would have continued to do nothing after 9/11, just like the two idiots Clinotn and Gore did for 8 years. This country was attacked 5 times when they were in office and we did absolutely nothing. Gore would have most likely invited Bin Laden to the White House for dinnner if he could have gotten any money out of it. You friends Clinton and Gore and their cronies did everything they could to destroy the military, FBI as well as the CIA .

P.S. Can you get your friend Al Gore to fix the internet, the newest virus is causing problems.

CFM,

I believe that you missed my point. The senate resolution supporting military action was just that. A RESOLUTION! It wasn't a law mandating that we HAVE to go to war, it's more of a formality, showing unity and support.

I'm not specifically against war with Iraq, nor am I expressing an opinion on whether I think GW made his case for war or not. The main issue I have with these political discussions is how emotional opinions get presented as fact, and tempers begin to flare.

Your post that I responded to had that air of indignance and self-righteousness. "I can't believe some of you guys" was the direct quote I believe.

It is PLAINLY obvious that most who responded to this thread adhere deeply to their beliefs as to what the proper course of action to take is, and not a lot of mind-changing is going to happen.

WHAT?????

Where did I insinuate that? See what I mean, you're banging the drum so loudly you didn't hear a word I said!


note to self: NEVER enter into political discussions on the internet...

lugnutt06!

I agree with you!

Sorry you didn't realize I was being facisious!(sp)-(making an obviously ridiculous statement)

I don't know if anybody has answer to this, I'm pretty well convinced sadam has the weapons, and that if we attack him he will use them.

What is the answer?


herm

Well, technically (and realistically), they don't have a choice. They go because they signed a contract stating they'd obey the orders of those appointed over them. To not obey those orders means jail time and loss of pay.

The Armed Forces are made up of people just like you and me; they all have varying opinions on what the leadership of this country is thinking. That includes the Commander in Chief. Some think the President is right, some think he's wrong. I'll guarantee you that there are just as many troops not wanting to go as do want to go.

This isn't some kind of sporting event where everyone on the team is just itching to play. This is real life bullet to the head, your dead stuff. There's no "do over," no second chance. Remember during Viet Nam when soldiers were asking, "What the hell are we doing here?" It hasn't changed. Troops today ask the same question. That's why it is so vitally important for Bush to have solid proof that we need to be there. This is not going to be a quick in and out war like last time. Look at Afganistan; we're still there a year and a half later.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is "supporting our troops." I've read a lot of posts from those agreeing to wage war proudly state they support our troops. Exactly how are you supporting them? Sitting safe and cozy in front of you computer ain't supporting squat. Just because you agree with Bush's plan doesn't support our troops one ioda. Little Johnny Snot sitting in that foxhole couldn't care any less whether you agree with Bush or not. Waving a flag and thumpin' your chest doesn't get him out of that foxhole or stop the bullets from flying at him.

If you're serious about supporting the Armed Forces, start getting some care-packages together to send to those deployed. Donate blood (they're gonna need a lot of that); volunteer at your local military installation or USO; find a way to help out a family whose spouse is deployed. Pray that we can end this without a shot being fired and everyone comes home alive.

That is supporting the troops.

Lil Fish

I'm not surprised that you would disagree after reading your posts. All I am saying is that we have a right to form our own opinions using facts not propaganda or lies. Life and death decisions should be based on fact's not some media spin generated to benifit big business and not us average Joes. Lets face it, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and the other tools of propaganda that saturate our lives makes it hard to be an independent thinkers. I find that my morals and values are often challenged by these talking heads that tell me who and what to hate and how soon to kill, without consideration for my spiritual needs to do the right thing by my fellow man. All human life is sacred. I refuse to support the killing of so many innocent people on the premise that it will prevent innocent people from being killed here. Just doen't make sense. Innocent Human life has the same value no matter where you find it on this planet. I hate to see human misery and suffering where ever it is found on this planet.
I believe that, what goes around comes around and we don't need all that bad Karma.

Go Harley

Thank you for your clear understanding and consideration. That was an excellent post.

John Lee

I find it ironic that you endorse stlhd's post when it is full of propeganda. He stated that the U.S. is going in "almost alone", He stated that this is a premptive strike (we have essentially been at war with them for 12 years) and that we are ignoring the U.N. all of which are at the least distorted, if not flat out lies.

Let's go fishing!!!

Vic

I am very comfortable with my thinking concerning this discussion. I guess the talking heads ( the Media ) you listen to and believe, leds you to think that my position has to be wrong. It's amazing how they ( the media ) can convence some that s**t smells just like a Rose. Myself, when I smell s**t, I don't pretend that it's cotton candy. I say it stinks and try to avoid stepping in it and will resist being pushed into it.

I've been watching this board for 2 years and as you can see I don't post much, but some of the comments on this subject make me want to express my views.

First of all let's talk about ph****** Republicans and there contribution to this country. I retired 10 years ago and since then our military has been reduced by over 600,000 troops. To quantify- From 20 Fighter Wings down to 10 - a 600 ship Navy to less than 400- Army divisions have taken the same kind of cuts. !0 years ago a 2 front war was possible probably not now. (Kosovo/Afganistan do not compare to Iraq and N. Korea)It isn't the Republicans who say we can't afford a strong military

For those who think we failed when Sadam wasn't killed in 91- you are wrong - As some have said ,- it was never an objective of Desert Storm. Look up Nat Security Directive 54 and you will see a clear statement of the objectives and by definition what constitutes VICTORY. For those who want to compare Iraq to Viet Nam- Find me what our clear cut objectives were. Yes I was there -1963 and 1969. That doesn"t make me an expert,but I wasn't a casual observer either.

Nobody wants "innocent people" to die -whatever that means. When did collateral damage ie "innocent people" become the measure of right and wrong. It sure wasn't in WWII when we firebombed Japan and the allies Flattened cities in Germany and the Germans Fired Buzz Bombs at London. I'm not sure collateral damage was an issue in Korea.

Television changed how we look at war and w we could really see how horrible it is in real time. Desert Storm ended not when we had annilated the Republican Gaurd But when people around the world watched bodies lying on the "highway of death "coming out of Kuwait City. 24 hours more of those scenes and the coalition would have come apart in my opion.

For those who don't think the case has been made that Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction - What if he does- he WILL use them- he has before.

For those who don't believe in war- let me say as long as ther are" HAVES" and "HAVE NOTS" AND /OR RELIGION thjere will be conflict. Name one armed conflict that wasn't rooted in this basic premise.

I offer these comments not as an expert but one who has been involved and one who believes we are at war now. Terorist are real and they want to do us harm. I want to kill the Bast**** before they can hurt my 3 granddaughters and my grandson. My oldest son is a fireman who was at the WTC as part of a search and rescue team- I don't want him to do that again.

This is a great board and Bob does us all a great service by letting us vent. I'D RATHER TALK ABOUT THE 2 STEELHEAD AND THE 3 DOLLIES CAUGHT AND RELEASED MON/TUES OF THIS WK.

Please turn on your TV to the Discovery Channel RIGHT NOW!

Very interesting show on about the Gulf War and all the bad things that have happened since then with So-dam-insane.

Great post there Stlhead!

You pretty much nailed it.

I'll only add, that you won't find the children of the folks beating the war drums most loudly, on the front lines.

No doubt Saddam is an evil dude, but isn't it kind of funny that in the 1980's during the war with Iran, that when he was massacring Iranians with the weapons we armed him with, he was OUR dude?

The time for inspecting is definiately over. This time we need to overthrough their goverment.I guess he'll finish what daddy started. J.C.B

John,
I should have been more specific in responding to your earlier post. In disagreeing I meant that I don't think you can say Stlhds' opinions reflect majority opinion in this country. Although I agree that a peaceful solution is best I don't think that is always possible.
JMS

I say we just get the heck out of the middle east and let them kill each other. Like they are doing now.

After all, if the US is such a bad place why are they all moving here?

Here is the solution that I think is the way to get everyone to agree. The U.S. removes all it's Military out of the middle east with this one exception. Instead of paying the costs of bringing everything home, we drop it off in Isreal. We tell all the Muslim middle east countries that we are done except we are backing and defending Isreal to the hilt. Any act of aggression onto Isreal is an act of war onto the United States no if's, and's, or but's.

Nebb,

I think you make a point but we can't trust Israel to do the right thing. Leaving it to Israel in the middle East would start The war of
the ages. I can see all those weapons used on a daily basis in the news( not in the US)blowing up innocent Palistinians while in their homes. Attacked with rocket's while they sleep because, there could be a terrrist somewhere in their neighborhood. I see Israel acting more like racist in that region. Leaving them in charge is sorta like leaving the KKK in charge of managing "The Civil Rights Bill" here in America and buying the rope for them to hang blacks who asks that it be implemented.

Why not let them be accountable for their action without us having to pay a price? It's time that we consider the Palistanian Homeland Issue with truth and reason and not let Israel run our foreign policy. Like I said earlier, this would be political suicide because of the hugh influence that Israel has in our goverment.

That's the elephant that's taking a crap at the dinner table and nobody can say anything. Man that's scary!

John Lee.

Wake up!!! Yes the Isrealis RESPOND with out mercy. AFTER they are attacked by some idiot who straps a bomb to himself and goes into a shopping mall, a bus, or a movie theatre to blow up women and children. The Palestinians objective is simply to kill Jews, and the more the better to them. That sounds like racism to me.

Isreal will go to the PLO and ask them to turn over the guys that made the bomb, provided the money, planned the bombing ect... The PLO/Yasser Arafat could avoid having buildings blown down if they would turn those guys over, but they never do. So who's falut is it when Isreal takes things in to their own hands?

Vic,

I don't think that you'll get it until you start to look at both sides. It sound like you think that Israel does no wrong. Why can't you see why the Palistinians are sceaming out to be heard and people like yourself could care less. How long could you live as a refugee on your home land without feeling as they do? When people are willing to give their lives the way they are, I think it would be good to explore the root cause of this desperation. Their screams are being heard throughout the world and I don't think that missles and bombs and WMD will silence their crys for freedom.

No doubt the Isreali/Palistinian conflict is complicated (there is more to it than any of us here will ever know). In my opinion the Palistinians that commit these horrible acts are cowardice, murderice animals, and should be delt with in a decisive manner. While I am sure that many there want peace there is a very large percentage of the Palestinians people who aren't really interested in peace.

I try and look at both sides of things and be fair. When you compared the Isrealis to the KKK you weren't being fair. The Isrealis aren't killing because they don't like the race or religeon of the Palestinians. Race and religeon are a factor everytime the Palestinians blow up little old ladies and kids riding the bus.

One more thing. It is pretty hard to listen to the desperate cries of a people who won't quit blowing up themselves up long enough to sit and discuss peace.

Little G.W is an idiot... Of all the problems in the world he picks perhaps the smallest one to deal with. His economic agenda is a total loser. The economy is going into the toilet and the general claim is "Clinton set it up"... Thats BULL.. His stance on the enviroment is also something thats not getting press that it should. In my opinion.. the two Koreas need our attention right now. Thats right , both of them. The South is killing many of our American companys with un-fair trade practices. How can a company like Hynix semi stay in the DRAM game with something like 12 Billion dollars of goverment support over the last two years. Hell, I could whip Tiger Woods in golf if I could tee it up over and over until I got the exact shot I liked. The Korean Goverment lends the money and tells them no problem, you don't have to pay it back.. and here have some more. Where the hell is G.W ... Head in the Sand looking for oil. The North is a real threat. Its not a question of looking for possible signs of nukes.. its them saying yes we already have em and guess what we are making some more. G.W wants to pick on the smallest kid on the bus. His dad was O.K- Daddys boy is an Idiot.

everyones opinions are valid on this thing, I just don't want to see U.S. Servicemen and women coming home in bags. I think we all realize that we have to take this phukhead Hussien out!!! But when and how is the question. The way I see it, it looks like it is going to happen within the next several weeks wether anyone supports us or not, I think we are already to far in to back out, I think it would make us look bad if we did back out now. For our Soldiers sake I hope the idiot(George W) lets the Generals and the Millitary people run the war and stays out of there way. Because they are professionals and know what there doing. It has to be that way and he needs to let them do there jobs and then it will make him look like a genius in the long run.
Peace Superfly

What a post. Long way from fishing and the great out doors.

Easy solution with just two words.

Tactical nukes.

Change the government, and take the oil....Any of the neighbors got a problem with that, we can take their oil too.

YES!!! See how easy that rolls off the tongue


Tactical Nuclear Warfare

Your cooler won't be empty long, we'll have enough glass to fill everyone's cooler with beer!!

RK43,

I think your easy solution of tactical nukes is poorly thought out at best. Easy solutions like yours suggest to me that you think we needn't concern ourselves with what the rest of the world thinks. Do you believe the U.S. will remain the sole superpower forever? The U.S. doesn't have many friends. But nations don't have friends; they have interests. Nations that act friendly toward us, do so only so long as it seems in their interest. Remember, no empire has ever lasted.

If the U.S. uses tactical nukes anywhere, those who also have them will likely target a few at the U.S. (if they haven't already), just in case. And those countries that don't have them will lose no speed to develop them. And when they have them, they will also target a few at the U.S. Just in case.

The easy solution would only be "easy" for a brief while. It would not be sustainable.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Vic,

I still think that the Israeli government is racist in its dealing with the Palistinians. Their system of government is run just like the apartheid government of South Africa before the World said NO MORE. As a matter of fact they were the biggest supplier of arms to South Africa during Aparthied. Those arms were used to oppress blacks ( the majority ) and keep them beat down, denying them their freedom.

Calling people that blow themselves up idiots and not saying the same for those that aim missile's and bomb's at the innocent, is hypocritical, in my opinion. They tell us that they kill in order to defeat terrorism and we believe every word they say. Since 911 they have carte blanche from us ( our government ) to kill and destroy anything that is Pallistinian. Americans that don't see this as wrong and believe that by them ( Israel ) killing rock throwing kids , it help us ( war on terror ) and make us ( U. S. ) more secure, is an idiot. Those are our bombs and our money that keep this misery factory working. We can use that money and resouces here at home to help American's during these difficult times and get that noose ( $ Isreal ) from around our necks. It's time to deal with the root cause. We can start dealing with it now or leave it to our kid's while we bury our heads in the sand.

Aparthied is wrong where ever it is practiced. Time for us to stop putting our money into a system ( Israel ) that will ultimatle fail because it's just flat out WRONG. Time will eventually come when this will be rejected by civilized society, just as it did in South Africa. We don't need our kid's to die at any time, for such a wrong cause.

The thing is we do life in a world community now and have to be think about other peoples feelings and what they think about the issuses that effect this planet we all life on! The comander of the shuttle was asked up in space about the Iraq war and was quoted as saying he prays it doenst happen but if it does he supports our troops. I wonder what different view he had of our world seeing it from up their instead of being caught up in our little daily routines. We love our kids, our families and our country just like everyone in this WORLD does, if I hear one more simple minded american say just nuke em Im going to puke

So what your saying is that when we go to war (which it sounds like ol' GWB is going to do) we should not use nukes. OK so when Sadaam uses his chemicals on our troops, we should turn the other cheek and not use any means to retaliate his use of WMD. Then what are we to use? The U.S. has said that we will not use chemical or biological warfare. Should the U.S. re-evaluate it's WMD policy and maybe use Chemical warfare also?????
And everyone who believes that the war can still be detered better hope that Iraq relinquishes(sp?) all it's weapons with a yellow bow tied around them cause that's what it's gonna take for ol' GWB not to pull the trigger on this one.

Just a little more info for ya to think about

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5097027.htm

We can get'em all in one shot!!!

If they use WMD on our troops. We drop a few of the venerable neutron bombs. You know, the ones we can put on artillary shells.

There were many who felt that the weapon, because of its relatively small blast and fallout, was ideal for use in densely populated Europe against a Soviet tank attack. Such a weapon could penetrate the armor of attacking tanks and hardened structures, killing the
people inside while limiting other damage.

Others felt that the neutron bomb would make the unthinkable thinkable. The complete destruction that nuclear weapons would bring was the primary deterrent to their use.

The neutron bomb, however, could conceivably make nuclear war more possible by allowing
the use of nuclear weapons without inviting wholesale devastation of the target, it was argued. Military planners might not be as hesitant to use neutron weapons as they might a standard fission warhead.

All the oil fields stay intact. Saddam is killed in his hrdened bunker. And the pissed off neighbors just might be next.

John Lee,

Thanks for your contributions regarding the Israeli/Palistinian factor that seems so little understood by many Americans. It's obvious to much of the rest of the world, which I think is why other nations don't support us. But then the Israeli/Palistinian situation is reported differently elsewhere. It's either under-reported or strongly biased is the U.S. I think that's why so many Americans don't seem to understand the connection.

It has been my feeling for some time that the U.S. could by one action improve its image throughout the Arab and Muslim world almost overnight. If the U.S. contributed, measure for measure, to the Palistinians, every thing that it contributes to Israel, the political reasons for Arab hatred of the U.S. would evaporate. Of course such an action would be very dangerous, since much of what we contribute to Israel is military weapons and equipment. In that environment, there is a real possibility that the Palistinians and Israelis would turn each other and the landscape they occupy into dust. Nonetheless, I'm convinced that it's the U.S.' blatant, one-sided, blind support of Israel and disregard of Palistinians that engenders most Arab and Muslim hate of the U.S.

Your analogy with South African apartheid is a good one.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Nebb, glue over here

Our media is the problem. It directs our thinking and actions and that's why so many of us are misguided. BIG OIL benifits from this propaganda, as it promotes and justifies the urgency of an attack. A large number of us will follow it blindly like sheep. Again, I think it is unfortunate for us to have to send our kids to kill and be killed in a theatre that's scriped by BIG OIL. Our government continues to generate fear through the media and it's actions.

Some of you seem to be so excited about the potential for the use of nuclear weapons you are about to jump out of your seats with joy. What in the hell is wrong with you? Do you believe that we are the only ones that have them? A nuclear attack on us would make the Twin towers look like a Drift Boat accident on the Callawah. These so called board hawks in my oppinion are probably suffering from small p**is syndrome. This tactical NUKE crap will sure go over well with the soldiers in the field that will bring home the radiation sickness. Have you already fotgotten the sickness that the depleted uranium cause to our returning Gulf War Vets and their families? They are still having all sorts of problems, and permanent disability in a lot of cases. How about you hawks telling us the number of rich or pollitically connected kids that will have to pay with their life for this high price for OIL.

Just wonder what a Bill Board Hawks Flotilla would look like. Sorry, bad idea, that would be way to scary. I Promise not to bring that up again.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if President Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 5,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

I am glad Bush is in office today and is willing to do what needs to be done. History will show that the U.S. is on the side of justice and bringing peace to the world.

No matter what your politics are; no mater how hard you lean to the left or the right; its time to come together as Americans.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the government, or their movites, but I think the case against Iraq had already been made long before the State of the Union address.

I don't want to wait for more innocent lives to be lost in another terrorist attack for us to pull our heads out and act.

Metalhead, I can appreciate your frustration. However, most of the people responsible for the attacks you mentioned are either dead, incarcerated, or on trial. But I know that scapegoats make life easier at times, so if that is Clinton's legacy, so be it.

It's still amazing to me how so many people are correlating all the past suicide bombings with Iraq. No one has yet to provide any solid proof that Iraq is responsible. Sure there's a lot of speculation. Even though everything seems to point to Arrafat and the Palestinians, everyone seems to still want Hussein. Why?

Because he's killed some of his own people? Okay; then why haven't we invaded North Korea? Or China? Columbia? Rwanda? Do people really think Hussein is the only dictator on this planet that violates human rights?

It's kind of odd, actually, that the mention of 9/11 and Hussein now go hand in hand. No one even mentions bin Laden, who ACTUALLY claimed responsibility.

I believe the fact is that Bush's government has produced this neat little package of propaganda to sell to the American people to rally them for war against Iraq.

My point is not that Iraq is NOT evil, but that it is no more evil than other countries in the world. We should be asking why Bush has singled out Iraq only.

Bush is worried about Hussein's hidden weapons; I think we should be worried about Bush's hidden agenda.

Irag is no more evil than other nations in the world? WOW

I think some of you guys should either move to Iraq or shut up and go fishing.

Grandpa, you added a word into the quote that was not there. And that is the problem these days. Lets turn what someone said around so it fits what we want to say.

M M

Again, all of those things you bring up are happening because we refuse to deal with the Palistinian issue. As long as we don't recognize their misery( Palistinians ) and how we contribute by our actions or our head in the sand approach, we can never expect to feel secure and safe here at home and abroad. Why is it that we expect the World to accept our aparthied policies toward the Palistians without protest and disgust?

We need to re-think our Middle East Policy in order to prevent our children and grandchildren from becoming isolated while fighting a war for what the majority of the people of the World are against. I repeat, the World will not continue to allow us, the free slaughter and suffering of innocent people in the name of our so called quest for peace in the middle east . If we want peace, I would suggest that we look a the settlements and say they are wrong and through deplomacy try to show that we share the Worlds view that something has to be done now and not later.

Again we don't see the elepant squatting on top of the dinner table about to spoil our meal. Who are we kidding, we are talking about a never ending, [Bleeeeep!] for tat, cycle of destruction, that we will get blammed for starting, by taking our bombs ( possibly nuclear ) to their land and dropping them on lots of innocent people. They ( Iraq ) are not threatening us over here. I ask you, would our Government be acting in our best interest and will you feel safer? I think not! We will be seen as the only Country that started using( Japan ) and continue to use nuclear weapons.

Try to remember, that what goes around, can come around. If it did, wouldn't you want your screams to be heard by all of humanity, if we had to live our lives on a daily basis as they ( the Palistinians ) do, now. War should be considered carefully and for the right reasons and not for just a few ( BIG OIL, Politicians ) to benefit for a limited time, because we gave them a blind eye. Got to demand decision that will work for the long term.

Openning a NUCLEAR pandoras box will not help the prospects for us to have a business as usual recreational fishery. Our environment is not bullet proof. Those of you that advocate that we do the wrong thing ( dropping bombs on the innocent ), will be inviting wrong things to be done to us. We have it good and I say lets not blow it. And we complain about the poor hatchery returns and poor Steelheading now? Can you say radioactive?

Just hope that one day, our best leaders are allowed to lead.

John Lee Hookum-- I see no obligation for the U.S. to send them welfare money. The U.S. gives Egypt 1 billion per year, 2 billion to Israel-- I say they all should be weaned off taxpayer money. Doesn't it feel good to work and give half a paycheck to to gov to spend on b.s. like this. Why doesn't the U.N. build houses for the Palestinians? Why aren't the Arab countries that are so concerned with their Arab brothers in Palestine sending economic aid to build houses etc for their fellow Arabs. Why don't they offer them a place to live--- the U..N. created this mess, they should fix it.

John Lee Hookum-- I see no obligation for the U.S. to send them welfare money. The U.S. gives Egypt 1 billion per year, 2 billion to Israel-- I say they all should be weaned off taxpayer money. Doesn't it feel good to work and give half a paycheck to to gov to spend on b.s. like this. Why doesn't the U.N. build houses for the Palestinians? Why aren't the Arab countries that are so concerned with their Arab brothers in Palestine sending economic aid to build houses etc for their fellow Arabs. Why don't they offer them a place to live--- the U..N. created this mess, they should fix it.

luggnut,

I agree with you 100 %. My question is why is it so hard for our leaders to see it. Could it be that some of this money is being kicked back to politician's in order to keep it flowing. Isreali PAC money is a real factor in our elections. A lot of that money comes from us ( the tax payer ) that is lining the campaign coffers of these candidates. It is hard to wein our politician's from this (ever flowing) cash cow. That's one reason why our Middle East policy is so messed up. Not hard to figure out why we are coming in last in our own country. Some of those billions of dollars are finding their way back to the pockets of you know who and influencing the policies that are not friendly to the everyday Joe blow that's footing the bill.

Lets end this parasitism. It's sucking the life out of us.

Yes, I agree--- just smile when you are working knowing half of your paycheck is going to support overseas governments, corporate welfare to multi-billion dollar companies in the U.S. along with social programs that flush billions down the tubes. The working middle class will become the working poor------

I dont think that gw has made his case against Iraq. But I do know that saddam has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, his own people in fact. You have to keep in mind that the weapons inspectors arent going to find a "smoking gun", but there in a freakin dessert and they could have mobile labs, moving the chemicals place to place to avoid the inspectors, I mean they arent going to be leaving any evidence just lying around for the inspectors to find.

My guess is, that they have mobile labs and they have many weapons hidden where no one would find them. Yes, I think saddam should be taken out of power. But I think the situation in N. Korea is a little more serious, they most likely have nukes, and the country is in very bad shape. I dont know but It looks like the beginning of WW3. A little bit nerve racking for me because Im going to bootcamp in september. Whatever happens we will prevail.

He gased over 100,000 serbs. Pile all those bodies in Paris, or Burlin,or downtown Seattle and see how many people would be against the war. Bush made a mistake in salesmanship. Took the wrong issue to the people. Sadman Insaine is a war criminal and should ne taken out for crimes against humanity, nothing more. The rest is BULLSHIP!

So what do the skeptics think about Powell's speach?

"Skeptics"? Do you mean the other countries of the world? The jury is still out. But, it doesn't sound like the US has, or will get, UN resolution which means, in my opinion, the US would be committing a crime if it attacks Iraq without it. That's the way the rest of the world is going to see it.

I meant skeptics as in people on this board.

I don't disagree with you on how a lot of the world views the situation with Iraq. However, I disagree with your assessment if the US acts alone. The UN has already approved a resolution promising serious consequences for not complying. If the UN's members do nothing then what kind of organization is the UN? If protecting the US and the world from madmen like Saddam is a crime...then so be it.

I believe Iraq has the weapons.
I don't believe attacking Iraq will stop Sadam from using them, to the contrary, I believe that is the sure way to find where they were.
I don't think there is anyway that he would ever disclose the location of all of them.
Is it worth a couple 100,000 lives and untold sickness and carnage cause he won't do what he said he would(tell where he's got them hid)?
This guy doesn't care about anything but his own preservation.
If it would solve the problem I'd be all for attacking him.
Who is gonna believe him if he tells the UN where the weapons are? Do you think that would solve the problem?

herm

I heard an interesting comment today on the radio. Basically that bombs with D's on them are good bombs...and bombs with R's on them are bad bombs. No amount of "proof" will stop the anti-war crowd from opposing everything the president (R) tries to do.

For those of you interested in learning about the role of BIG OIL in the looming conflict, please review the following links. Bear in mind that all countires have an economic interest in this conflict. So when we hear the anti-war side talking about how this is a oil war, remember that on the French and Russian side there are self-serving oil interests as well. It is incredibly myopic to say this war is all about oil and put the blame on the US. Because the other side of the "oil arguement", the side of the coin that the anti-war side doesn't mention, is that France and Russia have huge oil interests as well (and other contracts to boot). And those interests cause them to oppose war - regardless of whether it is the right action to take vis a vis WMD. Their opposition is hardly altruistic or humanitarian. They have their nationalist goals just as all countries do. I wish people would take that into a little more consideration when the "BIG OIL" argument is pulled out. Here are some helpful links from a variety of sources, both "pro" and "anti" US.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2721963.stm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29376

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0919threats.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s695406.htm

http://www.hichemkaroui.batcave.net/frenchnet.htm (this is a long article but has excellent information about the French connection in assisting Iraq to develope an atomic bomb).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,857735,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s680619.htm

M C

If they can negotiate a business agreement with Iraq for it's OIL, so be it. There is a big difference between there way (responsible and civilized) and ours (irresponsible and dangerous) when dealing with Iraqi OIL. Our way is to drop bombs, kill and take it. Not just a small difference in my opinion.

When you go to the bank to take out a loan, do you sit down and negotiate or do you go in like Jesse James (bank robber), and just take all you want? That is why the World will judge our actions as rogue and illegal without the U. N. backing us with a new resolution for war. This would require a vote after the inspections are complete.

JLH,
First, please read that articles on what France gave Iraq to get those contracts. Civilized? Hardly. France is in no small part responsible for much of Saddams weapon programs.
Second, please reference articles or documents pertaining to plans by George Bush to take the oil fields and give them to US oil firms. I haven't heard anything other than speculation. If you can provide me and other readers what I have provided to you then you will convert my views on this subject. But I am not interested in opinions with no facts behind them.

Please read this article and then tell me that France is doing things "responsible and civilized". The reality is that many of our American servicemen may die by the hands of arms sold to Iraq for oil by France.

http://www.hichemkaroui.batcave.net/frenchnet.htm

M C

There is no need for us to go over there in the first place. What weapon's he may have would not harm a single serviceman if we would not go over there killing those people in the first place.

So now, I guess it's time to blame the French for weapons that he may have and not consider our (U S) own guilt, that some of that stuff could be our's that our men now have to be concern about.

Don't you think that dealing with the Palistinian Issues asp would help World security and stability over night? I think ending APARTHIED in the Middle East would go a long ways in keeping us safe at home and abroad. By going over there dropping bombs killing innocent people we are creating more terrorist.

I ask you, do you agree with me that the Isreali approach to the Palistinians issue is similar to South Africa's APARTHIED? If so why don't we (us) look at our role and why we are funding and arming them. Don't you think that's dangerous in the long run? They don't listen to us now.

I also ask you, should we tax payer be paying to keep an APARTHIED government installed there? You being a Finacial Advisor, would you recommend to your clients that they invest their capital($) in maintaining an APARTHIED system of government? And do you think that it's a secure investment, knowing how the WORLD feels about APARTHIED? I say lets take care of our own (Americans) and bring that money home where it is needed.

JLH,
Still waiting for those BIG OIL links. I'm sorry, I can't continue this thread, especially if we start going down the Israel/Palestine issue. Thank you for some interesting points and challenging dialog.

M C

Just looking at Oil without looking at the link to why these people are so desperate is exactly what I say is the problem. We are dealing with a human problem in the Middle East that's causing this mess, not just and Oil issue. Until we all are willing to challenge ourselves and examine our own morals and values as Americans and stop ducking the embarrasing questions, this s**t will continue.

I know the questions I asked you are not popular because our media will constantly beat around the Bush and not allow a dialog concerning this(could it be the elephant again) . We are programed or wired (propaganda) to believe that it's not patriotic to ask or answer those question (head in the sand) but, I think it's wise to give them some thought before endorsing a measure that will only make thing's worst for us a Americans. We should do this not as Republicans or as Democrates, but human beings with a conscious. Before sending our kids to war, we should not be afraid to ask the embarassing or difficult questions and matching them with answers.

Anyway I understand,and glad that you find what I say interesting and thought provoking. That's how we help each other grow, both spiritualy and as humans, is by sharing. All this mocho stuff is no substitute for good and rational thought

Best of luck and tight lines!

JLH you are exactly correct the problem is israel / palestine. That is exactly why we were attcked 0n 9/11. If this is a war on terrorism we better start with saudi that is the origin of the majority of the hijackers. Dont recall a single Iraqi.

Ynot, I don't think that's correct. While Bin Laden and his boys aren't happy with the Israeli/Palestinian issue, their biggest beef with the US is our support for the royal family of Saudi Arabia, whom they view as corrupt, despotic and anti-Islamic.

Mike C,


What you are asking for cannot be found because the U.S. plan other than “Iraqi reserves would be placed in a trust” for the Iraqi people hasn't been presented to the world.
The main questions and concerns have been:
How do we plan to award the contracts to run the oil fields?
How do we plan to sell oil “for the Iraqi people” and to whom?
There are billions of dollars in contracts here all of which will be siphoned out of any potential profits the Iraqi people might see.
I think putting out a detailed plan might calm oil fears. Why hasn't this administration done that? Don't they think that far in advance?
But, I'm still waiting for the minutes of the closed door energy policy meetings.
A betting man would wager that Exxon and Halliburton stand to make a lot of money off Iraqi oil. It's a no brainer. Is it the sole reason to invade Iraq? Obviously not.

Oh brother, sucked in again.

JLH, I let you have the last word and that wasn't good enough, you took a second last word.

STLhead,
Without a doubt, big oil will make a killing - heck, they all ready are judging by the latest increases at the pump. I'm not naive on this point. What my point is that I can clearly give links that show why France and Russia are up to their elbows in oil and why they are really behaving the way they are. It has nothing to do with not wanting war, they don't want to lose their position in Iraq. What I am asking is that since the anti-war crowd like to crow that this is an oil war, show me some concrete proof rather than speculation. I'm willing to be swayed, but not by opinions. Show me the BIG OIL links. Because the only big oil links I've found so far are French and Russian links.

After doing some research on the net I didn't find any conspiracy supporting documents. Indeed, of interest is that most of the oil exported from Iraq goes thru Russia, China, and others. The US ends up getting about 556,000 bls/d of oil from Iraq.

If we were going to speculate about big oil, I'd say they would be most happy if a war broke out and the fields were destroyed, not captured intact. Why? Because then oil prices soar from the shortage, and oil field repair divisions find themselves very busy. If the fields are captured intact that represents a flood of oil on to the market and downward pressure on prices. Right now oil prices are soaring and that I'm sure is making BIG OIL very happy. If we actually capture Iraq fields intake I suspect oil companies will not exactly be overjoyed.


Google.com is a good search engine to find articles related to the topics we are discussing. Here are links to various articles:


http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2003/02/06/rtr873019.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06239338

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-13.html

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/0203/07kuwoil.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2726269.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2670083.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2670083.stm

I trade stocks for a living. Oil field companies are hot as fire right now. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Mike, you are right on target. Russia and France's positions are definitely based out of their economic interests. Big surprise, politics is almost always about economic interest.

Jesse James and his band of outlaws ride in and take the loot(OIL). Without the U N that is the way the rest of the World will view it.

Seeing Tom Ridges face In the news, with all those vague terrorist alerts does nothing to decrease the treat of terrorism if we are over there bombing the heel out of those people and the U N being denied time for a proper evaluation and decision. If we go in without the U N, the terrorist will have more countries willing to shelter them. Tom Ridges standing in front of a camera telling us the terrorist are coming, would be the understatement of the year. But wait that could change to, at this point I don't see a scarcity of understatements, seems that they're in abundance now.

Let those cash registers start jingling, while the bombs are a killing. Man I don't need a new Loomis that bad. Time to look into other souces of energy or stop using so much.

Saddam killed more people than that dictator milo of serbia and we bomb the crap out of him and his army then try him as a war criminal.Germany after world war one agreed to a cease fire and sanctions that prohibited them from machinations of war.Then hitler came along and broke all of the agreements to the cease fire and the rest is history. Im not comparing eye rack to germany but there is similarities.If europe wouldnt have stood by and let germany build up its armed forces against the agreements and treaties perhaps history may have been different.Just my humble observations.

I'm cocerned that by us doing the wrong thing toward Palitinian issues(which are valid) and continue to support Israeli aparthied at what ever cost, History will more that likely start to compare our actions to Hitlers. Could it be why we( the U S) want support a court system (World) with the power to prosecute war crimes. Don't think Hitler would have liked the idea either. I'm sure that he(Hitler) would also care less what a U N body represents. Just hope that we don't go down that road.

Seems that our deplomacy is based on the our way(right or wrong, the hell with the rest of the World and the U N)or we will use WMD to take our way. Why risk our future and the World's, by staring a Nuclear snow ball(first strike) that could get so huge it could consume the entire planet. Not to mention all those microbes that could make the plagues of the middle ages look like the common cold, in comparison. Once that Avalanche gets started it could be to late. We, in our life time, have a huge responsibility for the future of mankind on planet Earth. I sure don't want us to blow it.

I do believe that our President made his case for war. I believe that we are a nation that is capable of acting on our own to solve the problems that we as a nation are face with.Do we have to ask permission from the united nations to protect our values and beliefs that generations before us has fought for???? Do we the people choose to believe the media or the president when it comes to war in Iraq. Our former president clinton knew that Bin laden was a threat. He knew because bin laden claimed resonsibility for the bombing of the U.S. embassy in africa. Our former pres. knew where bin laden was at that time and he choose to send a destroyer to the area and launch cruise missles at a asprin factory. President clinton could have save many lives if he would have had the balls to send in our special operations units at that time to eliminate the threat of bin laden. But no its easier to sit back and launch some missiles at a target and not sacrafice any American blood.
Well folk times have changed, four airplanes with americans were flown into our buildings killing thousands!!!We all saw it. They have declared war already!!They have struck the first blow. The Iraqi people danced in the streets!!!!Burning our flag!!!! Cheering as our innocent men, and woman burned and were crushed!!!If only they all could be with us for one moment to take this poll. What would thier vote be. Does anyone feel like I do??? Do we sit back and wait for the next Islamic extremist, or crazy dictator to figure out how to strike us??? The UNITED NATIONS laid out laws for sadaam to follow. Did he follow what was set forth???NO Should the USA have to lay the law down???NO the UNITED NATIONS should!!!!! But they are spineless, and more concerned with trying to talk the crazy bastaard in to giving in!! how many people think that its a good idea to try and talk a bully into not being a bully???? Inspections???
How easy do you think it is for sadaam to hide some chemicals and biological weapons??? Dig a hole And bury it! not to hard ehh? Mobile units????sure you bet.Easier to hide cause all you have to do is watch the inspectors leave their compound call ahead with the direction of travel and then move any trucks that are in that direction...Wake up folks! those of you who say that the former Bush should have done the job 12 Years ago. YOUR EXACTLY RIGHT!!! but he didnt he gave into the united nations and their pressure to just push sadaam out of Kuwait, and then set up insepections to disarm sadaam.Now many of you are wanting to listen to the united nations again!?!?!?!???? "give them more time. Let the inspections take place. Maybe in a year if the inspectors find something then it will be ok to go in and get him." What B.S.!!! Folks our president is a man that I would serve under!!
He is doing the best to not let SEPT 11TH happen again. Bin laden is a terrorist with limited resources.sadaam huesian is a HITLER,
with a whole nation behind him. I think that he has the capabilities to harm us just as dramatically as binladen did.
Folks in closing, I would like to remember those who died on that awful day.May they rest in peace, God be with them! May their families that were left behind be comforted by the knowledge that we have a president that will do all in his power to protect our people.
Lets go and get that insane
bastaard! May God protect our
troops in battle.

http://64.224.14.56/EUNI/july_02/saddam_04.html

Kind of a funny sight on the subject

SteelyMan

LT thats a good one!