We gotta support them

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Downtown last week. I ended up driving through the anti war protests. I spoke to many of the protesters. My main comment was "Shouldn't we be supporting our soldiers? They are fighting for you.". Nobody would respond. How can anyone ignore the fact that brave Americans are risking thier lives to protect our freedom.

I personally don't want war, but it seems that we are heading for just that. If I can't stop it, then I must give my brave fellow Americans that will be engaged in the conflict my full support. Not because I believe in war. But because my fellow countryman may be risking thier lives. 110% support from me.

We must Support Our Soldiers.

[lost_sailor]

I think that in general there is support for the troops. They don't start the war, we're not going to blame them. I don't believe there is going to be the level of disrespect we saw for the soldiers in Vietnam.

But, a LOT of people are not convinced that we need to wage war on Iraq. We know it's not a decision that the troops will make. They have a job to do, and I'm glad they are there to do it.

Anyone remember that guy Osama Bin-Laden? Gee what happened to him? There's a war I can get behind, people who attacked my country.

[Silver Hilton]

Heavy metal,

They may not have responded because they feel like I do. I support our troops. They are doing a tough job, and may be putting their lives on the line. I'm not going to say anything bad about them, as they are upholding their oaths to serve. They deserve and have my respect.

However, you used the phrase, "protecting our freedom". The reason that some people are protesting is precisely that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with our freedom. It's about geopolitical and economic issues that, while arguably important to us, are not about freedom of our country, or the safety of our people.

I actually support taking Hussein out. But I don't delude myself that this is about freedom. This is about keeping oil prices down, so that the world economy stays stable, so we can all make money. The rest is propaganda. Sorry.

The safety of our people is threatened by Al Qaeada and Bin Laden, and Iraq has nothing to do with them.

There is an assault upon our freedom happening as well. Unfortunately, that assault is being conducted by our own mullahs, the Bush Administration. The Bushies have decided, and have largely been successful in selling the American people on the notion that the Constitution is in the way of fighting the war on terrorism. So we'll just disassemble the very reason that this country is worth fighting for, in the process of fighting for it.

On a side note, it just occured to me that there are alot of parallels between the radical islam mullahs and the Bushies. Both absolutely believe that they are in the right, morally speaking. Both see no problem in doing grievous harm to their own nations in keeping with those moralistic notions. Both are absolutely convinced that God is on their side. Both think it's absolutely OK to kill to further their cause. And both get frustrated and confused when the rest of the world condemns them.

And further, I suspect that both groups are actually good people underneath, just laden with bad ideas. I wonder what would happen if they could see that?

[GutshotApe]

SH - In the future, hindsight will be 20/20 but right now we don't know for sure if Iraq has nukes or is about to get 'em. They have chemical and biological capability already. Is there an Iraq-AlQuaida link? Will Iraq or AlQuaida make a nuke/biol/chem attack? I don't know. Can we afford to take the risk? I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume he is not an idiot - and that he and the military brass know a lot more than the public does about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I'm still hopeful Hussein will abscond and we can avoid war. A strong show of force is what it will take to make Saddam go peacefully......otherwise, I'm willing to follow Bush's leadership and support military action in Iraq, if necessary.

[1pump]

I was going to jump on my soapbox but SH beat me to it. Snooze, you lose. :smile:
It's not that the protesters aren't supporting our troops. They're protesting our government's foreign policy.
You don't blame the sword for the arm that wields it.

[1pump]

Originally posted by SH:

The Bushies have decided, and have largely been successful in selling the American people on the notion that the Constitution is in the way of fighting the war on terrorism. So we'll just disassemble the very reason that this country is worth fighting for, in the process of fighting for it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Kinda like "Destroying the village in order to save it"? :shocked:

[fishing is life]

i think the majority of Americans (90%) support our troops no matter their beliefs on whether this war is right or not. i think it is good people express their opinions on this war. it seems like Bush is the one who will make the final call and i am a bit worried he is a one track mind right now. seems a bit scary to me to let one person make this kind of decision. we are alienating oursleves and making the rest of the world fear us. i know September 11 has made things different but i think we need to jusitfy our case before we do this on our own. we will lose alot of troops especially if we go ground. we could make the terrorist situation worse if we are portrayed as an aggressor. anyway the troops have my 100% commitment what ever we do.

[TheRogue]

I agree. I believe this country learned a horrible lesson in how the Vietnam soldiers were treated. It's still a black mark in our history. I personally am against the war without UN support, but if(WHEN) the US does attack, I won't lay on ounce of blame on those who are following orders to fight it.

TR

[Cool Texan]

I would take the anti war protestors more seriously if more than 30% had jobs, and if they didnt protest every other weekend about some grand cause. Give me a break.

I support the soldiers 100%.

[Silver Hilton]

Texan,

If the protesters don't have jobs, how come the protests are on weekends? In the pictures I see, most of them look like adults, and they're all dressed in reasonably new clothes. I don't see them panhandling. No shopping carts full of possessions in evidence. Kinda looks to me like they're employed.

Or maybe you mean they're students. Young, idealistic, perhaps naive. Probably shouldn't let them vote or have opinions. God knows their opinions won't be right. After all, remember Vietnam. The kids were wrong then.

Maybe they are unemployed. I'll bet a lot of them had jobs last year, but don't now. They took jobs with companies that have failed in this Republican led boom that we are currently experiencing. That clearly shows bad judgement on their part, which means we can't trust their opinion, can we?

If they don't have jobs, do they lose their rights as citizens? If I recall, Lured, Keta and COR don't have jobs right now. You saying they became stupid and unworthy of opinions when that happened? If they get jobs tomorrow, do they get smarter?

Let's go one further. Maybe our opinion should count more based on what kind of job we have. The more money we make, the more our opinion counts. Or, if we're in the military or the executive branch of government, we should be even more influential.

Wait a minute, that's what we have, isn't it?

Of course, that was also the case in Germany in 1938.

[Cool Texan]

Silver Hilton,

Good lord dude...calm down. It was a sarcastic post aimed at pointing out that there is a protest over something almost every weekend it seems like. Dont get your panties in such a twist over it.

[The Fishing Geek]

I don't support Bush in sending our troops to war, but I support our troops for what they have to do. They're being forced to leave their jobs to take ones that pay much, much less. Sure, they get their jobs back when they return but what kind of economic stimulus is it when you take some of these folks from $80,000 jobs to go be $20,000 soldiers? What kind of stimulus is it when you take good men and women from their employers, thereby affecting the employer's productivity?

Classifying the protestors as wayward kids marching just to march and not believing in their cause is a popular view presented by the right. If you haven't been at one of these marches you might be willing to believe it. The folks who want to take the time to have their faces put in the media are very different from the folks who are there in person but don't want to have backlash at work, so they don't want to be seen.

I should know. I've been there. I've marched against this war. And I will again.

[Silver Hilton]

As is mine. Don't worry, I don't mad about any of this. My panties are unknotted, and lay delicately and smoothly over my posterior, leaving not the faintest hint of a line.

Or was that more information than you needed to know?

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by Cool Texan:
Silver Hilton,

Good lord dude...calm down. It was a sarcastic post aimed at pointing out that there is a protest over something almost every weekend it seems like. Dont get your panties in such a twist over it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Sarcasm is hard to sense when it's in text.

[Cool Texan]

Silver...ummm....yeah.....I'm just gonna walk away now... :grin:


To all iFishers...I am 90% sarcastic person, please write that down. Except when I talk about 28...that is just a horrible proposal and I am voting No. I bet all those damned dirty protestors (planet of the apes reference...the original, not the Marky Mark version) will vote for it though!!

[Hogmaster]

OK, I was determined to stay out of this, except that I will say that we do need to think out what must go through a soldier's head.

I am not a religious guy, I admit, but I got this in email yesterday and to me it really captures a lot.
___________________________________

The following passage is from a sermon by John Hagee:

I want you to close your eyes, and picture in your mind the soldier at Valley Forge, as he holds his musket in his bloody hands. He stands barefoot in the snow, starved from lack of food, wounded from months of battle, and emotionally scarred from the eternity away from his family surrounded by nothing but death and carnage of war. He stands though, with fire in his eyes and victory on his breath. He looks at us now in anger and disgust and tells us this:
I gave you a birthright of freedom born in the Constitution and now so many
children graduate too illiterate to read it.

I fought in the snow barefoot to give you the freedom to vote, and you stay at home because it rains.

I left my family destitute to give you the freedom of speech and you remain silent on critical issues, because it might be bad for business, or might offend someone.

I orphaned my children to give you a government to serve you, and it has stealthily stolen democracy from its people. And you do nothing about it.

It's the soldier, not the reporter, who gives you the freedom of the press.

It's the soldier, not the poet, who gives you the freedom of speech.

It's the soldier, not the campus organizer. who allows you to demonstrate.

It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin is draped with the flag who allows the protester to burn the flag!!!

When you receive this, stop for a moment and say a prayer for our U.S. ground troops all over this world.

"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need.
In Thy name. Amen."

_____________________________________

That's all I've got to say about this...

[TheRogue]

Now, why did I just KNOW that you would get a "NO on 28" blurb in a "Support our Soldiers" topic??

[Cool Texan]

Who....ME?!?!?!

NO, i wouldnt so something like, especially not 28 times!! Ok? Got it? No 28 references to whatever it is you are talking about. Do you know what I am saying...or NO?

:grin:

[Snag]

The UN is an empty suit. Unable or unwilling to act. (Rwanda genocide, to wit, Belgian troops under UN mandate fled before a machete wielding mob and 500,000 were hacked to death) The UN sat by for years while IRAQ defied resolution after resolution. The Europeans are complicit in Saddam's maintainence of power through appeasement (shades of the 1930s) and billion dollar oil deals. Saddam is a murderous tyrant oppressing and crushing all dissention and opposition. Women ore oppressed, murdered in public as examples to all. We are justified to make war in Iraq to remove Saddam just to liberate his people, notwithstanding the possibility of WMD's and violation of 10 years of resolutions. NOBODY else on Earth has the will to do it, we go it alone, if we must.

By the way, where were all the peace protesters during the Yugoslav regime change? The bombing of Belgrade? I don't suppose that silence had anything to do with the fact that that "war" was being wage by a Democrat? Where were the American UN supporters during the African genocide?

Let us make no mistake, much of the protests going on are as much or more about political oppostion to President Bush on other isuues rather than the merits of our case against Iraq.

My .02 worth

[Boedy]

I think Cool Texan was trying to say that he doesn’t like the protesters that just protest because they like protesting.

I also feel some of these people just want to relive the sixties and think that they are more enlightened then the rest of us because they like trashing a Starbucks now and then.

Its funny how the same people who where up in Seattle protesting and trashing the city over the WTO and " The New World Order" now think the UN is the greatest thing in the world. One minute the UN is this Evil big brother out to get everyone and now they act like it’s the cure all to the world’s problems.

It’s easy to see how someone could think that most of these protesters are really just following along and protesting because they like the smell of Teargas and the looting of a Gap store here and there. Not to mention all the anarchists crap we see every time a bunch of these wanaa be hippies want to protest anything.

The antiwar protesters are ether uninformed about the real threat an Iraq / Saddam Hussein with WMD would pose to the USA. Or they are overestimating the effectiveness of the UN. Ether way I think it just comes down to their feeling that all War is bad so we have to protest it regardless of what the facts are.

We would have protesters if UN gave the US a Mandate to take out Saddam. Even if GW came on national TV and said this is what we know this is how we know and this is why we need to go in and take him out before he takes us out ( I think he will when the time comes BTW).

Another thing as long as I got a good rant working here, GW has not attacked Iraq YET and we are not at war with Iraq at this moment. GW is only threatening Iraq so they come clean, he is making it clear to Saddam that we mean business in the hope that he (Saddam) realizes that he has to disarm or be taken out. How effective do you think the UN would be against a man like Saddam with out the threat of force?

[ 01-24-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[Cool Texan]

Boedy,

Hit it right on the head. The sincere protestors....sure, have at it. Dont get in my face though, as I probably dont care what they have to say. But the protestors who do that to fill in their day...I might run them over in my SUV after voting NO on 28. (there, just brought about 4 threads all together on one!!)

[1pump]

Portland, Seattle and Eugene have large populations of resident "anarchists". Sure, a lot of those folks down there last weekend only had Iraq in mind. They finished their demonstration peacefully, then jumped in their Volvos and minivans and went home. But take a good look at some of those other faces in the crowd. They'll be back next week for the gay rights demonstration. And the week after that for the protest over logging. And a week later for a march on nuclear proliferation.......you get the idea. And I bet that half of those people doing "battle in Seattle" didn't have a clue what the WTO is or what they do. Nor did they care. They just wanted to break a few windows and tangle with the cops and stop some rubber bullets. The violence detracted from the spirit of the protest and overshadowed the real issues. When it gets to that point there is no issue. It becomes an "us versus them" mentality and both sides lose credibility.
OK, back to the point. There's always an element of malcontents who protest just to protest. They memorize a few slogans and think they have a "cause". Take away the attitude and the anger and there's nothing there.
Demonstrations like last weekends are a part of what makes this country great. Free speech and the right to gather peacefully. I applaud those citizens that were down there to voice their concern over our foreign policy and our current posturing in the Middle East. But to the career protesters out there: Get a job. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[GutshotApe]

You're right about there being a bunch of "anarchists" in Eugene who travel all over to protest.

About two years ago there was an anarchist protest in Eugene and the rabble stopped traffic in downtown area. One anarchist climbed up onto the hood of a car driven by a woman, scratching & denting it. She had just picked up her 22-yr old son from work at his construction job. The son got out, grabbed the anarchist and threw him to the ground, got astride of him and began pummelling him with his fists and a wrench he had in his back pocket .

Of course, the anarchist called for the cops to arrest the 22-yr-old and for the prosecutor to prosecute him. The guy was charged but I think it was a matter of formality and eventually was given a stern lecture and let go.

[1pump]

That's ironic. If the guy was a true anarchist, he wouldn't have any use for the cops or the court.

[5-Cents]

[img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

[Norski]

If the protesters get in the way of our 4x4 well some one is going to get hurt!!
I remember the 60's and I also remember Vietnam, I wish I was'nt born in the 40's as I would of mist it all but I went down with a buddy(dead now) and raised my hand and went to protect this country and there's, when I came home tham damn protesters were stell doing there thing, and what do you think we got in return for our deeds?? NOT A DAMN THING, so when I see these people out there crying about the spotted pigon, tree huggen, war mongurals, well they can't stop a 4x4 truck. And Yes,Yes, Iam voteing NO!!!

[Lured In]

Amen Hogmaster!

I not only support our troops, I support out country, and even our President. :shocked: :grin:

I have been beating my head to try to find a suitable analogy to share my thoughts on the Iraq issue. While this is certainly not a perfect one, here goes...

You have a daughter who is dating a guy who has a history of domestic violence and is a convicted felon. One night while at dinner, a argument errupts and your daughter's boyfriend puts her best friend in the hospital. The police show up and and arrest the boyfriend and he is off to jail for 6 months. The police go to his house and remove all of his guns, knives etc(which he is not supposed to have). Again as a convicted felon he is no longer able to own a gun and has to go to anger management classes.

After getting out your daughter begins to date this guy again. A short time later he stops attending anger management classes and your daughter mentions she found empty bullet casings in his house.

So I ask you is it worth waiting around to find out if he is going to beat up your daughter or do you call the police and have him brought in on a parol violation for not attending anger management classes?

Do you go over to his house and explain how much you love your daughter and beg him to go back to anger management classes so she can still see him?

Does the boyfriend pose an immediate threat to your personal freedom?

Summary: (if you couldn't figure it out.) Your daughter is the US, the boyfriend is Iraq, your daughter's friend is Kuwait, and the police is the US military. (you are you.)

Iraq has had a history of violence (poisoning their own, invading Kuwait) and was put in 'jail' (the Gulf War) and disarmed. He was physically disarmed and asked to allow inspectors to continue to investigate. (anger management classes). He kicked out the inspectors(stopping anger management, a violation), and now there is some soft evidence (that we know of) that Iraq still has weapons(another violation).

While I realize this is a weak analogy at best, sometimes we lose touch with the impact of a situation until it is brought closer to home and out of the political realm.

I for one would not (assuming I could) allow my daughter to see him anymore. I would call the police at the first sign he was violating parole. Talking with him is not going to make him change. And yes he poses a REAL threat to my personal freedom if he should decide to hurt my daughter. NO! I am not going to wait around to see what happens.

[Thumper]

We are heading towards a truly catastrophic event --- the loss of millions of American lives in a nuclear, biological or chemical event. Likely nuclear. The technology is so simple!!! I have already described the scenario. It will take place in the harbor of a major American city. And the city will simply disappear forever.

No politician wants to talk about it. Our President and his subordinates know perfectly well it will happen if the Muslim crazies get hold of any suitable strategic weapon. That weapon can come from any of several sources.

We are working closely with the Russians to ensure that they are not the source, though that could still occur.

Other sources include North Korea and Iraq.

North Korea is an issue complicated by the presence of 35,000 Americans in harm's way. Not an easy problem to solve, so we have adopted a patient stance.

Iraq is an absolute no-brainer. We can neutralize that threat in about a week of intense fighting, either alone or with a coalition of countries. It will be done, and it will be done very soon. Thank God.

Then we will get on with the issue of North Korea. Hopefully a diplomatic solution will be evident to the North Koreans after they see the Iraqi problem disappear.

If we fail, you will see the ultimate disaster in this country. If we succeed, the world will know another 50 years of relative peace.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

The people in this demonstration last week appeared to be people of capable means. I did not notice the anarchist element at all. I can understand the opposition to war but I base it on not having a realistic view of how things really are.

Iraq is playing games. Look at thier track record. Invading thier neighbours, using chemical weapons against thier own people and the Iranians, killing any opposition, ruling by fear, etc... It is only a matter of WHEN they give weapons to terrorists. If they have not already. Saddam is a very evil man who has suppressed millions of people for decades.

Time to give him the Shock and Awe. There won't be much of a struggle after the air assault is finished. Most likely our soldiers will see rubble and white flags. The entire Iraqi infrastructure "communications, power, radio, etc..." will be disabled by cruise missiles and satellite guided bombs in a few hours. The majority of the armed forces will most likely disarm just as they did in the Gulf War. You can bet that when the population realizes that they have been liberated from saddam they will be happy. There won't be urban warfare with the population rising up against us.

After we destroy Saddams Revolutionary Guard with massive air strikes and coordinated ground assaults, within days, that tyrant will have nowhere to hide.

Hopefully he will be captured alive and brought to justice like Milosevic. Can't wait to see Saddam wearing an orange jumpsuit.

Support our Troops

[ 01-24-2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: HeavyMetal BankFisherman ]

[GutshotApe]

Just about the lamest argument of all in opposition to acting against Iraq is: "if we go after Saddam it will REALLY **** off the terrorists and we'll be in for it then". [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

As if there aren't a bunch of P.O.'d terrs out there now - altho quite a few less than there were 16 months ago.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

I hope that there are angry terrorists out there. But they should be scared. Thier time is coming. They are getting rounded up one by one across the world. It is only a matter of time before the foot soldiers get tired of sacrificing themselves while thier leaders hide in fear. Safe from danger.

Thier ideals will crumble just like those of the Soviet Union. Osama and his buddies don't have an unlimited amount of people willing to die to attack a country that has done nothing to them. They are most likely running out of recruits.

Obvious failure seems to stop many people in thier tracks. Most likely many have decided that raising a family and crops is a better life than becoming a suicide bomber.

[ 01-24-2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: HeavyMetal BankFisherman ]

[fishwhenican]

Most of the so called "anarchists" are very happy to have never experienced anarchy.

[Silver Hilton]

Heavy metal

I wish you were right, about the number of people available to Bin Laden as suicide bombers. However, have you been following the suicide bombings in Isreal over the past several years? They don't look like they are tailing off to me. They still seem to find plenty of young soldiers, willing to die.

One of the scariest things I have read this year was a book on Islamic fundamentalism. The author's point was that in Islam, there is a considerable amount of Koranic support for the warrior who dies for the advancement of Islam. There is quite a bit of fervor bound up in this, and I think it would be a strategic mistake to believe that there is any shortage of young men who are willing to die for the cause. Every step we take, frankly, right or wrong, is usable by the mullahs to pump warriors up to sacrifice their lives. They literally believe that there is a special place in heaven for them if they die in the service of Islam, with multiple virgin wives ready to do their bidding when they arrive. As rewards for your servicemen go, it makes the GI bill look kind of pathetic in comparison.

I think it's foolhardy to think we've got Al Qaeada on the run. We got whupped in Vietnam because we didn't think a bunch of peasants could really fight. Then we found that it can be pretty hard to find and kill those peasants. I hope we don't make that same mistake of arrogance again.

[Silver Hilton]

GSA,

I suspect that the terrorists have Hussein on their list, just after the house of Saud, as someone to take out. Any cooperation before then, of which I doubt there has been any, will be a marriage of convenience only. Lets remember, he waged war on the mullahs of Iran, has essentially a secular power base, and no apparent religious alliances. The only thing keeping this guy out of Bin Laden's gun sights is that he's keeping us off balance.

[TheRogue]

We would have protesters if UN gave the US a Mandate to take out Saddam. Even if GW came on national TV and said this is what we know this is how we know and this is why we need to go in and take him out before he takes us out ( I think he will when the time comes BTW).

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">However, according to every poll out there, he might actually get the support of the American populace if either of the above things were to happen. Oh, yeah, I forgot, this administration doesn't have to tell the public anything............ :whazzup: :whazzup: :whazzup:

[garyk]

Heavy Metal,

I write this as a member of a family that bears the scars of combat from several wars.

1. The most patriotic thing we can do is keep our kids here, in the USA, out of harm's way.

2. No, our soldiers are not fighting for us, or you, or me. They are being used as a projection of power by the oil cartel that is occupying the White House.

3. Your posts bring up terrorism and Osama Bin Laden - who these days might be called Osama Who?

Yet who are we now sending whole divisions after? Some truly dangerous terrorist who's money is co-mingled with the Bush family's. Of course not.

Do we focus on the Saudi's, who's Bin Laden family were the ONLY citizens leaving this country by air on Sept. 12th? Nope.

Instead the public's attention gets diverted to a despot, that we armed and maintained, and who now happens to sit on a resource that Bush-Cheny-HalburtonInc. want VERY badly to control.

Don't buy into the picture that the media is fronting for the corporate elite.

Connect the dots instead and then see the picture that emerges.

Support our soldiers? By all means!!! Keep 'em right here.

[1pump]

Origanlly posted by Silver Hilton:

I suspect that the terrorists have Hussein on their list, just after the house of Saud, as someone to take out. Any cooperation before then, of which I doubt there has been any, will be a marriage of convenience only. Lets remember, he waged war on the mullahs of Iran, has essentially a secular power base, and no apparent religious alliances. The only thing keeping this guy out of Bin Laden's gun sights is that he's keeping us off balance.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Bin Laden, the Saudis and the Iraqis are Sunni Muslims, as are the Taliban. There's no love lost between them and the Shi'ite Iranians. Which is why the Iranians kept quiet during our foray into neighboring Afghanistan.
Mullahs and ayatollahs are particular to the Shi'ite faith. Sunni Muslims don't believe in clergy between them and God (Allah). As far as they're concerned, a dead mullah is a good mullah.

[ 01-25-2003, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

[happybrew]

For some odd reason I find myself sitting on the fence on this issue. I was in the Army for seven years. I have two brothers and a brother-in-law in the Army. I think that we would be justified in invading Iraq if they pose an imminent threat to our security, or the security of one of their neighbors. The key is "imminent". What does it mean? If they are a month away from doing us damage? Six months? A year? Five years? And the further out one goes, the fuzzier the predictions and intentions become. The fact of the matter is, I as an American citizen don't know. The government knows, or doesn't, but they can't tell us without compromising sources and/or showing their hand/or showing that they have no case. As an American citizen, I have to trust the judgement of those we have elected, but if we invade, they better- and darn well better- show us the information they have to show it is justified. So far, I hear accusations, but no evidence.

Saddam Hussein is a bad, nasty guy, and he should be taken out. The issue is whether we are the ones who should take him out. Will we be viewed by the rest of the world as the big bad bully if we do? I have an idea, but of course, it will never be put into action. The war will be expensive: I heard 100 to 200 billion dollars. How about if we tell the Arab nations that if THEY take him our, we'll provide support, and take the money we would have spent on the war to rebuild both Afghanistan and Iraq? I'm sure those high dollar figures would be sufficient. We accomplish all of our goals that way: Saddam gets taken out, we don't look like the bully, and two nations get to finally see a little bit of hope for their futures.

happybrew

[Silver Hilton]

1pump,

There must be something wrong with your analysis. You state that mullahs are unique to the Shi'ite flavor, yet we are avidly hunting Mullah Omar, among others, and the Taliban had a set of mullahs. We were/are hunting for several of them.

A minor point, to be sure. Mullah's or no, Bin Laden is driven by righteousness (in his own mind, anyway) and sees the secular rulers as evil to be eradicated. Hussein will be on his list, soon enough. If we were smart, we'd engineer it.

[Silver Hilton]

Happy,

I agree. The security that is at stake is that of the neighboring countries. It'd be nice if they could do the job. Problem is, they don't have the military strength.

Many analysts, including some on CNN and in the Wall Street Journal, both notable hotbeds of radical leftists, think the costs for invasion and occupation are closer to from 500 billion to 1.3 trillion dollars, depending on how much we decide we have to help rebuild the nation afterward. I'd like to know how much of that will be paid by Halliburton and Chevron.

[Boedy]

Originally posted by garyk:
Heavy Metal,

I write this as a member of a family that bears the scars of combat from several wars.

1. The most patriotic thing we can do is keep our kids here, in the USA, out of harm's way.

2. No, our soldiers are not fighting for us, or you, or me. They are being used as a projection of power by the oil cartel that is occupying the White House.

3. Your posts bring up terrorism and Osama Bin Laden - who these days might be called Osama Who?

Yet who are we now sending whole divisions after? Some truly dangerous terrorist who's money is co-mingled with the Bush family's. Of course not.

Do we focus on the Saudi's, who's Bin Laden family were the ONLY citizens leaving this country by air on Sept. 12th? Nope.

Instead the public's attention gets diverted to a despot, that we armed and maintained, and who now happens to sit on a resource that Bush-Cheny-HalburtonInc. want VERY badly to control.

Don't buy into the picture that the media is fronting for the corporate elite.

Connect the dots instead and then see the picture that emerges.

Support our soldiers? By all means!!! Keep 'em right here.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Garyk your Isolationist fervor and conspiracy theories are hard to swallow. Are you are saying the only reason that Bush wants to go into Iraq is for his personal gains? I hope you have some hard core proof of this and not just that you heard it on talk radio somewhere.

Just because GW has been in the oil business in the past doesn’t mean he is willing to go to war to get a contract. Doesn’t the Pres and his Cabinet have to divest from any companies they may work for or own before taking office to avoid the type of conflict that you speak of? I am not sure on that SH what do you know about GW finances and what the president has to do in regards to them before taking office?

[OneLastCast]

Last Monday my wife called me and said the sheriff was having a little visitation with the neighbor. The neighbor is suffering from some severe mental problems which manifests itself with a lot of arm waving, screaming and talking with God from the front porch. (actually that sounds really similar to some of these political posts) I am glad to see that the sheriff is keeping tabs on it and hope that they will exile him if required.

So that has added a little more to my feelings about Saddam.

I have sat on the fence for some time but in the last several weeks I have decided we need to take out Saddam. One of the deciding factors was listening to a Senator Lieberman interview were he stated that he was all for going after Saddam because Lieberman sits on the intelligence committee and is privy to information that is not available to all. Lieberman did state, and I agree, that he hopes that Pres. Bush will release some of that information. At one time a strange lady was pushing the philsophy that "it takes a village". Well I think it is time for the village sheriff to take care of the village problem.

A lot of the discussion seems to imply that the US should take an isolationist stance. And there are a lot of times that feeling comes over me. Just say screw it, it is their problem. Let them deal with it. And we will pull all our troops back to the US and just sit here. But I don't think that will do anything but cause bigger problems.

Regarding the recurring theme of we are just after the oil. There was an interesting editorial that made some good points. If we are after oil, why don't we just lift the embargo, why didn't we just finish the job when Bush Sr. (an oil man) went in to rescue Kuwait, and why do we continue to support Isreal, a country without oil, which angers and frustrates all the oil producing neighbors.

OneLastCast

[1pump]

SH,
Christian Science Monitor 10/10/2001:

Omar's weighty title, which is not accepted by Muslims outside Afghanistan, represents a long journey for a man who never finished his Islamic education. In fact, Omar laments his interrupted schooling, and still calls himself a "talib," (one who seeks), rather than a "mullah" (one who gives) - even while some of his followers think of him as a god.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I don't know if my analysis is wrong, but apparently the "mullah" title was hung on him by outside interests and the media. :smile:

[ 01-25-2003, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

[TheRogue]

What will be the effect on the US economy to call up and deploy MANY 1,000's of reservists from their living-wage jobs and send them off to war for months or years, with the pittance a active-duty soldier is paid?? Seems like a pretty poor time to not at least think about that.

I suppose in some cases, it will actually help, because with the current unemployment rate, there should be people available to fill in behind them while they're gone.

Just wondering,

TR

[Snag]

Adding to OneLastCast's post,

Get over the war for oil soundbite and slogans folks. If all we wanted was his oil, appeasement and deals would be far easier and far more profitable. (a la France, Russia and China). This "war for oil" nonsense is just a silly re-hash of Gulf War I. Do we have a vital economic interest in the free flow of oil at reasonable prices? Of course we do! But we have that now (more or less)! Why upset the apple cart for something far less than a sure thing? President Bush is taking a huge risk to achieve, basically, what we already have according to the war for oil argument.

Personally I think the future is in Bio-Diesel and fuel cells, then we can tell them all to go pound sand.

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy,

I don't know the detail of Bush's and Cheney's finances per se. They're both rich, obviously, I believe Cheney a good bit more than Bush. It is usual for the assets of sitting presidents to be put into a blind trust, where they do not have visibility to the contents or management decisions while in office.

I think it is simplistic to think that our government executives would make war to enhance their own personal wealth. It's not really feasible, nor rational, nor necessary. When Bush leaves office, he has a pension of I think $200,000 a year for life. He doesn't need the money.

But, while it isn't about the president's personal wealth, this potential war is about oil and oil money. Not any one person's or single company's money or oil. It's about keeping oil prices stable, in order to keep the world's economy stable. That's why we pushed Hussein back in 91, in order to keep him from disrupting the Persian gulf's ship traffic and the Kuwait and Saudi wells.

To think otherwise would require believing that the policy makers in the last four US (Raygun through Shrub jr.) governments were all both stupid and illogical. A much simpler hypothesis is that American foreign policy is usually directed at protecting American economic and political interests. When those interests aren't at stake, we tend to be reluctant to get involved. Witness Rwanda and Bosnia.

We supported Saddam for a long time, because he was useful in keeping the Iraqi oil flowing. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait, we'd probably still like him. We still support the House of Saud, who are not a lot nicer than Hussein. People lose sight of the fact that one of the main reasons Bin Laden targets the US is our support of the royal family of Saudi Arabia.

Getting rid of Saddam is about oil. Get used to it. It still is a reasonable thing to do, in my opinion.

I think it's funny, all the pro war folks who have a hard time acknowledging this. The feel good "protecting our freedom" and "hunting down terrorists" BS is just US government propaganda, to try and drum up support for an unpopular action necessitated by harsh economic fact - the world economy is dependent on oil, and we need docile client regimes in the middle east to keep the oil flowing. It would be better for us to simply accept that we are still imperialists, call a spade a spade, and just be efficient about it. Then the world could believe us when we say something.

The other alternative is to reduce our use and dependence on foreign oil, but that would imply, among other things, far fewer SUVs and jet sleds, or alternatively powered ones. And, according to the other thread, a fair number of people seem to think it's their God given right to continue to maintain our dependence on oil from despots.

My 2 cents.

[ 01-25-2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[monoman]

Sh
Your welcome for the laugh. I glad you find me and those like me so funny. It must be all that hemp of yours that clears your mind.

[1pump]

One Last,

I've always wondered why we continue to support Israel as well. The obvious answer is that the US has a huge, affluent and well-connected Jewish population. One could also point the finger at Hitler and Stalin as well. The Jews have been persecuted for centuries, and those two cupcakes are just the most recent examples. Israel is a thorn in the side of the Middle East, but so are the Palestinians. And the Syrians. And the Yemenis. And the.......oh, forget it.

[Silver Hilton]

Monoman,

I quake in the face of your withering scorn. :depressed:

Alas, none of my ruminations are hemp influenced these days. Because of our country's current policies, 90% of high school kids can get pot in their school, but 44 year old suburban fathers can't score. Yet another family friendly result brought to you by our government.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Basically we have us the USA. We are the only Super Power left in the world. In a little over 200 years we have gone from a few renegade colonies to the dominate power in the world. Our system works!

We are now at a juncture in history where things can either go our way or not our way. We may need to take action to ensure that history is reflected as going our way. Iraq is an example of us taking action.

Countries like Britain, Austrailia, Spain, Italy, etc... are going to back us no matter what. France, Germany, and Russia are great countries but I think that they are feeling as though they are diminished powers in the global scheme of things. The reason that they are making such a fuss is to try and prove that they still have global clout. They don't, but as long as we let them think they do they will eventually do as we say.

It is and isn't about oil. Remember That we are the fourth largest producer of oil in the world. The crisis in Venezuala has more of an impact on our oil supply than Iraq as most Iraqi oil is destined for Europe. Thus Germany and France's reluctance for war and a disruption of thier oil supply. So if it is about oil it is a Europian oil issue.

If we are to lead the world as the guiding light of democracy, an evil dictator such as saddam can not be allowed to snub his nose at the will of the US government. Perhaps the UN will go the way as the League of Nations. Koffi Annan is definately not up to the task of leading the UN in an aggressive path towards ridding the world of all the tyrants out there. Genocide is being committed on a daily basis while UN monitors just watch and fill out reports documenting the attrocities.

To all the anti war people out there. A few Smart Bombs killing ten soldiers that are nothing more than criminals would probably save hundreds of civilians from being robbed, killed, and ***** in third world countries around the world. The US could help many more people if we were allowed to get the bad guys.

I thought that I was too old to join the military, thirty eight. But some branches allow you to join the reserves until that age. Heck, I am in better shape than those fast food chubbies in thier twenties.

If given the chance I am ready to serve my country.

Many people take for granted that most of the stuff we have in this country comes from other countries. Thats why we have military presence all over the world. To protect our interests.

Sure we make shady deals from time to time, but thats the way the world works. And you are not going to change it marching for peace in Portland Oregon. So take the money you spent on gas, the sign, your bumpersticker, the money you spent at some anti war dinner, and give it to a legitimate charity where it will do some good. Donate your time at one of the missions in downtown portland. Make your time count. Forget the fluff and do something real.

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by HeavyMetal BankFisherman:
If we are to lead the world as the guiding light of democracy, an evil dictator such as saddam can not be allowed to snub his nose at the will of the US government. Perhaps the UN will go the way as the League of Nations. Koffi Annan is definately not up to the task of leading the UN in an aggressive path towards ridding the world of all the tyrants out there. Genocide is being committed on a daily basis while UN monitors just watch and fill out reports documenting the attrocities.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Well, if we're saving the world, there's a pretty long list of dictators. How about, just for example, Saudi Arabia? The house of Saud are essentially despotic rulers that oppress their people as they see fit. I guess I'm not clear why, if opposing non-democratic rule is our mission, why we're not taking them out? Why aren't we focused on regime change in Liberia, Singapore, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Libya, Ethiopia, Somalia, North Korea, Burma, or China? That's just a short list of non-democractically led countries.

Then, of course, there's Afghanistan, where we took out a popular regime and put a set of despotic warlords into power, who promptly started raising opium for export to the west as their major export crop.

If it's dictatorship that we are keeping the world safe from, what is it about the dictator sitting next to the Tigris river that is so unique that it warrants our attention, as opposed to these others?

Maybe it really isn't our intention to support democracy around the world, but rather to maintain our economic interests.

It's also not clear to the rest of the world that we are the leading light of democracy, when we let a computer error determine who our president is, despite a clear majority vote suggesting the opposite candidate. I'm not a Gore supporter, just reminding you that democracy is about who gets the most votes, and Bush didn't.

[ 01-26-2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Silver Hilton. You raise many interesting points of view that may be contrary to mine and I am glad that I have the opportunity to voice my opinions, get response, and then reevaluate my own stance based on that feedback.

I respect your right to your views but mine remain unchanged.

I think that maintaining our economic interests is crucial to maintaining our democracy.

As for the other repressive regimes. I think that a more aggresive stance by the US to force changes in regimes has to start with Iraq. We are already poised on the doorstep. After we deal with Iraq swiftly and decisevly other regimes will be quicker to fall in line and implement changes in thier society. If we the US does nothing against Iraq after posing as aggresively as we have. We will suffer seriously. How are we going to force other countries not to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons if we just let Iraq go on endlessly leading the inspectors around. Laughing at us on news shows and basically just disrepecting our country. They make comments like "The mother of all battles", "Greeted by bullets". Seriously, do they actually think they have a chance? What are they going to do. With thier crappy decades old Soviet weaponry a few boy scouts with wrist rockets could almost take them out. It will be tougher than that but this will be a quick battle.

We know they had large quantities of weapons. Where are they? They are playing games and will continue to do so. Failure to disclose is a Material Breach in itself. Guilty from day one.

Its been over a decade not just a few months. Saddam has got to go. The way he snubs the USA sickens me to no end. The whole world will sleep better when he is gone.

I don't think we can just stand back and and let things take thier course. We need to proactively engineer the course of things for our best interests. When I say "Our" I mean the USA. We need to put ourselves first. We need to stay Number One.

If I sound like I don't care about the rest of the world that's too bad. The truth is, I do care. I just care about my country more.

[Silver Hilton]

Heavy,

We agree more than we disagree. Please remember, I support taking Saddam out. I also care a lot about our country. I am a registered Republican. I dislike the Bush administration because I don't think a Conservative platform requires lying to the American people in order to get support. I think the truth is enough, and it appalls me that Bush is lying to us. My positions on the drug war not withstanding, I am, and have been for 20 years, a hawk. However, I'm not a knee jerk hawk.

I don't really give a hoot about the rest of the world, per se, except insofar as it affects us. However, I am a pragmatist, and what the rest of the world thinks and does affects us. I also like to think I'm moral, so it is not acceptable to me to create ruin in the world, simply as a means of bettering my own life. That's why I argue so stridently in this area.

To be blunt, I think the overall comportment, of, say the French, is contemptable. The well documented unofficial position of the past french administrations to terrorists has been, we won't bother you, if you don't bomb us. They have been a transit channel for several of the major terrorist efforts, from the Bader Meinhof on. This is, to say the least, contemptable.

But that doesn't mean than it is wise for us to ignore what they think. I believe that a smart posture for us is to be aware of what they, and their populace think, and to try to bend that to a position to be supportive of our goals. And right now, it is not supportive of our goals. That restricts our options. We will be better off if they support us. That doesn't mean that we don't do what we need to do if they dont support us, it just means that our job is easier, and therfore, less of our boys might die, if they support us.

My feeling is kind of like what Lyndon Johnson said about a guy in his party who was criticizing him. He said, "I'd rather have him inside the tent p-ssing out than outside the tent p-ssing in." Our current policy seems bent on getting people to p-ss on us rather than getting them to p-ss on our enemies. I'd rather have the UN and European nations agreeing with us, because it would make life simpler and cheaper for us. That reduces our tax dollars, and reduces that number of our boys that get hurt. Do we agree that those are good goals?

Heavy, you and I aren't going to agree on this, totally, because I'm pretty cynical about the communications emanating from the Bush government, and you're not. That's cool with me. We can disagree on that point. I hope we can discuss the various political machinations and enjoy that, anyway.

[ 01-26-2003, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[speyfly]

SH, the truth about why the White House won't tell the truth is... they think that we are stupid, not paying attention, unable to understand, too common, didn’t go to Yale, not able to know what is good for us, don't want lower poll numbers. You know, elitism

[Boedy]

Originally posted by speyfly:
SH, the truth about why the White House won't tell the truth is... they think that we are stupid, not paying attention, unable to understand, too common, didn’t go to Yale, not able to know what is good for us, don't want lower poll numbers. You know, elitism

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You sure you are not taling about the Clinton white house?

[Silver Hilton]

Spey,

I think that's simplistic and too complex at the same time.

I think the White House lies for two reasons. First, you get into office through an advertising campaign, and the natural inclination is to continue the campaign once you're there. There's a certain amount of habit. Carl Rove made his career on this. However, over four years, a campaign won't hold, if it's not backed up with facts, and that is starting to happen. That's why the polls are diving -- reality is dissonant with the story line.

Second, the philosophical background or underpinning of the Bush administration is based on a belief they are right, that right is might, and might is right, and that if you are right and righteous and have power, that it is OK to say whatever you need to to to obtain your goals. They genuinely believe that they are right. They also believe that that the bulk of the US is wrong, and that it is morally OK to do whatever is necessary to obtain their goals. Since the bulk of the population disagrees with their stance, they need to lie and deceive to get the population to go along with their stance. This explains accurately and simply the postures on taxes, the environment, the war in Iraq, and the drug war.

If you want to understand people, a first step is to ask yourself, what must this person believe is true, in order for their actions to be logical in their own mind? Most people are honest and ethical, in their own world view. GW and crew are among that group, in my view. I think that GW is well intentioned. They differ from me in that they believe that it's OK to lie in order to do good.

[Silver Hilton]

Boedy,
a sad state of affairs is that the Bush administration has not yet demonstrably raised the level of ethical behavior in the white house. You will get no argument from me that Clinton lowered the office of the president to a level not seen since the Nixon admistration, however, Bush hasn't shown yet that he's running the office for the benefit of the American people, as opposed to running it for the benefit of the wealthy few.

You can refute my argument by showing that your tax break will be within 50% of the $1000 and change that the 'average' american will enjoy.

[toonboater]

The only problem I have with the move to oust Hussien is with the lies being propagated. Quite frankly, every time I hear the phrase "weapons of mass distruction" I get the runs. The policy wonks in the Bush administration have hegemony on the brain. This so called war (more like a swat operation) is about establishing a base of operations in the Middle East pure and simple. It's all about control of a very volital area of the world which just so happens to have oil in the ground. Why doesn't the administartion come clean? They might just get more support if they did.

[STGRule]

SH: Remember My "two boats left of center? How about 1 to 1 1/2 boats left of center? Gotta join the shape-shifters while still being left. You want to know the weird thing? I registered a Repub, because my Husband registered as a Demo. This is so we get the rhetoric from both sides and can make responsible? choices. We haven't voted party line since forever. Sometimes we cancel each others vote, sometimes we don't.

[ 01-27-2003, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Silver Hilton

I think that are views are much closer than I had initially perceived. Approach may be much different but substance very similar.

I do tend to jerk my knee more than I should. But I have been following this Iraq affair for the past twelve years and it boggles my mind to no end to hear these foreign diplomats talk about giving the process more time. More time for what? We are wasting time as it is. The sooner we get this done and out of the way the sooner our economy might start to improve. This speculation about war is causing us harm.

There are facts and there are fantasies.

Fact #1 Iraq must be disarmed.
Fantasy #1 Iraq will disarm willingly.

Fact #2 We will forcibly disarm Iraq if necessary.
Fantasy #2 We will have to go it alone.


Even after Blix basically said that Iraq has not complied and is still not cooperating these guys still want more time. Or so they say. I wonder what's going on in the behind the scenes meetings right now. What kind of deals are being made? How much are we going to have to pay Turkey to let us in from the north? When will the Saudi's let it be publically known that they have granted us full access to all of our bases in thier country? What kind of business deals are being hatched to ensure France and Russia's interests in Iraq. Once all of these issues are resolved I would imagine a second UN resolution with four permanent members voting yes, China abstaining, and authorizing use of force to disarm Iraq. If not we'll do it without UN sanction but still with many countries on our side.

Just so you know. I don't care much for the Bush administration. As far as I am concerned Colin Powell is the only member worthy of the position he's in. The rest are crooks with connections. I agree with the administration as far as Iraq is concerned. I don't believe all the crap they spout.

And just so you know. I am always willing and ready to discuss politics with someone when the discussion remains as civil as it has here.