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