When SHOULD we goto war? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Amazin

10-04-2002, 12:36 AM

I must confess I did not coin the term.It was at an antiwar rally here in Northern Cal.But I do agree with it.And Dave,in answer to your question,I don't believe in war and especially this one.In my opinion the Bush administration is using the war issue for it's own interest and is not saving the world from Saddam.I think we need saving from Bush.This wouldn't be the first time our leaders tried to make us believe in the existence an "Evil Empire".Remember,LBJ,Vietnam and Communism.LBJ knew he couldn't win the war yet sent american troops basically to a slaughter house and he knew it.To me this is the lowest form of existence.Yet he is regarded with respect because he was the president of the United States.Now if Bush goes and kills Iraqui civilians in the name of ridding the world of evil Saddam,is this any better because they are not Americans?If anyone thinks so,then it time for a reality check.Im sure if Bush or anyone else who is pro war had relatives in Iraq that would be in danger of being killed from bombing,then they might think twice.I don't need to have relatives anywhere to know that we are one big family on earth.I pity the soldier who kills because he will one day realize what he has done.His pain will be worse than the act.

Dave Schwartz

10-04-2002, 01:05 AM

Amazin,

So, are you saying that under no circumstances would war be okay with you?

No matter what was done to us? No matter what the lvel of involvment of Iraq?

Dave

Lefty

10-04-2002, 11:57 AM

Amazing, I shudder when I think if there were more people like you during world war 2. I guess we would all be speaking German, Japanese or a combination of the two. Sadaam kicked out our inspectors. He gassed his own people prev to that. He invaded Kuwait. But, yeah, Bush doing this for his own angrandizement... You are Amazing all right.
Yet, people of your ilk have always existed. During the Revolutionary war only about a third of the colonists fought. Thank god for that third who seem always to be there to save the two thirds who are either afraid or just on thew wrong side.

Amazin

10-04-2002, 12:13 PM

Dave
You've lost me.Are you saying Iraq has done something directly to us to pr
ompt military action.If so enlighten me.

Lefty

This isn't WWII nor the Rev.war.Why don't you mention Vietnam?I can't argue with someone with your attitude.I can only feel sorry for someone who defends blood for oil.Just think if you were born an Iraqui.I'd bet the house you'd come down off your high horse.By the way there are more people in this world like me(start shuddering).The Senate is debating the issue.Read the Newspapers once in a while.

Dave Schwartz

10-04-2002, 01:30 PM

Amazin,

No. I am simply asking you what must they do for you to think that war is necessary?

For example, if we had another 9/11 and you discovered that Iraq was involved would that justify war in your mind?

Or suppose that a "dirty bomb" was exploded here and the bomb was traced to Iraq. Would that be enough?

Or would it take a serious bio-chemical attack to do it?

I am simply asking at what point is pre-emptive war justified?

I reiterate that this is a serious question. I am not baiting you so that I can attack your position. I simply would like to know what your reasoning is.

Dave

Tom

10-04-2002, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Amazin
Dave
You've lost me.Are you saying Iraq has done something directly to us to prompt military action.If so enlighten me.

He has fired on Us and Brittish airplanes over 600 times so far this year, while they are flying UN APPROVED missions in the no-fly zone. This a that poor little innocent dictator shooting directly at American and Brittish soldier in the line of legal duty.
That is act of war in my book. He has violeted the cease fire agreement that is legally binding by th UN - he has failed to live up to the agreemtment that stopped the Gulf war, a LEGAL UN APPROVED war. By doing this, he has negated the terms and thus the war is rigthly back on. Just because the UN no longer has the stones to finish what needs to be finihed, the US and Brittain do.
He is known to have used poison gas on HIS OWN people. HE is developing that and more to deliver to terrorist - BTW, where you out of town on 9-11-01? Maybe you missed it - there was a little altercation in Manhatten. Seems some of our worldly FAMILY members got a bit rowdy and broke up some things.
FER CHRISTS SAKE -WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR AND THEY STARTED IT!
Dave, if you don't agree, never mind!

Rick

10-04-2002, 05:25 PM

I can't understand pacifists at all. Wishing that everyone was nice just doesn't work. Every freedom that everyone has in this country was won by us going to war. Sorry, but that's the truth.

BUT, I don't want our military to get in a no-win situation, so I'm very cautious about backing people with no military experience who are itching to send our troops into a difficult situation. When we go, I want to win with as little cost to us as possible. If that means waiting a little longer, that's OK with me.

Dave Schwartz

10-04-2002, 06:56 PM

Tom,

Oh, I agree completely. I was ready long ago.

I started this thread because I'd like to understand how the people to the left of us think.

Dave

Tom

10-04-2002, 09:14 PM

Hmmm,
After reading my last post, it would certainly appear that I am at war with my spell checker! I think there is record in there.

Did you see today, Taliban-Johnny is now sorry for what he did and Richard "Hot Foot" Reid is laughing at us and declaring that he is an enemy to America? I say, let's finish what he started - strap some dynamite to his feet and blow him up. If he lives, put him in the same cell with with Johnny. Let them rot together.

Lefty

10-05-2002, 03:49 AM

Amazing, It's not blood for oil it's blood for freedom. If we did nothing about this despot you'd be the first one denouncing Bush if Sadaam pulled another 9-11 or worse. The Afghanistan people were happy we drove off the Talibon; didn't you see the pictures?
The Iraqui people will be happy to be rid of Sadaam too, believe me.
Vietnam is what happens when weak-kneed Democrats go to war and don't have the stomach to win it.

Amazin

10-05-2002, 11:02 AM

Dave
Serious questions to answer in a few sentences.First I need to preface with a clarification: I am not defending Saddam,nor do I care for him.I am defending some principles.Secondly,allthough my views on this issue(No war)are in the minority on this board and in this country,they are in the majority in international opinion.Because this is not a situation where Bush has any evidence.When Saddam invaded Kuwait it was a united international alliance.This is more of a Bush war.His timing is as suspicious as a horse dropping in class.Here are some reasons:When Clinton had the Monica case,we suddenly had to bomb Iraq.(Wag the dog).He was so desperate and perjured himself about the Monica incident and obviously lied about the urgency with Iraq.Today same pattern.Sagging economy,corporate scandals,leaks about what the president knew of 9/11.Time to wag the dog.There are other benefits.Boost popular opinion(winning a war allways looks good when running for reelection).Installing a new government in our interest,on a military level.And of course oil interests.Now what's wrong with that.Simply that Americans are being duped into thinking we a doing it for a noble cause as if we really cared about the Iraqui people.In 1988 we were on Iraq's side in their war with Iran.Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians.No complaints here.Since the Gulf war,we have been reguraly bombing Iraq,over one million Civilians have died as a result,with many more living in disease,hunger and poverty.Press very quiet.We've killed more civilians in Afghanistan than were killed here in 9/11.Press very quiet.How do you expect me to believe this hipocracy that our government cares for these people whose relatives they have killed.It's sort of like handicapping the U.S. government.They have a past performance of lying for their own selfish interests.

Lefty

10-05-2002, 12:16 PM

Amazing, ummm, we're going to war. Bush doesn't have to convince you or people like you. Your intersts will be served like it or not; your ass will be saved.
I don't care what the International community thinks: This is America. We set the standard: We feed the world, we try as best we can to make the world safe for all. We will not sit here and be terrorized and just take it because people like you are against it.
You decry our policies but you wouldn't choose to live in another country on this earth.
Anybody in this world that lives in poverty and goes hungry does so because of a lack of democracy not because of our democracy.
Quit reading those liberal rags and grow up. The world is a scary place and we must be ready to fight to preserve what our forefathers fought and sacrificed for so long ago and what our veterans fought and sacrificed for not so long ago.

Dave Schwartz

10-05-2002, 12:33 PM

Amazin,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I see your point of view. I even agree with you on some of them. At my house I predicted (back in mid-summer) that we would be going to war in mid-october because of the "vote-opp" for the republicans.

That is about "when," not "why."

As for the why, I believe we have more than probable cause, but this question isn't about me.

So, back to my original question: "What must they do for you to think that war is necessary?"

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Larry Hamilton

10-05-2002, 02:36 PM

Amazin,

I have read your post several times and will admit I am totally lost. I was hoping you would put up facts connected with logic to arrive at conclusions. What I see in your post is that you started with a conclusion which you then defend with suppositions, innuendo, half-truths and personal opinion.

As an example, it is undeniably true that clinton had an affair with Monica. It is not proveable that it was to divert attention from his troubles that he bombed the aspirin factory. You can guess it, or suppose it, or think it, but you cant prove it and subsequently use it as fact. By the way, this was as near as you got to a FACT.

Triple Trio

10-05-2002, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Amazin
Today same pattern.Sagging economy,corporate scandals,leaks about what the president knew of 9/11.Time to wag the dog.

Not so long, people in the US were still talking about Enron, WorldCom as well as possible improprieties in some of Cheney's and Bush's business dealings. Now it seems most Americans are more concerned with how many Iraqis they can kill. And I wonder why.

Tom

10-05-2002, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Triple Trio
Not so long, people in the US were still talking about Enron, WorldCom as well as possible improprieties in some of Cheney's and Bush's business dealings. Now it seems most Americans are more concerned with how many Iraqis they can kill. And I wonder why.

The concern is how many Americans can we save! This is not about the Iraqi people - it is about Sadam Insane and the threat he poses. If the Iraqi people were to kill him today, there would be no attack, unless a clone of him took over. And we haven't forgotten about the Enrons and World Com's of the world, either. They are just not the top priority anymore. And as far as Bush goes, he is absolutely not the White Knight. I think it is deplorable that he is making the campaign contribution dinner circuit. I think his strong speeches would hold a lot more authority if they came from the oval office of the White House lawn instead of over a rubber chicken and champaign. And his month long vacation on the ranch was totally out of line.
The only reason I voted for Bush/Chenney was that they were ones to run the ship if the world got out of hand - which it did. I shudder to think what Gore would be doing were he at the helm.

Lefty

10-05-2002, 09:32 PM

Tom, if Bush stops campaigning then we may well have Gore or Hillary next. No thanks.

Lefty

10-05-2002, 09:38 PM

Tom, when Clinton vacationed he visited his rich friends and partied it up. Bush'es was a working vacation and he prob. accomplished more good than Clinton did the whole 8 yrs.

Amazin

10-06-2002, 10:55 AM

Dave:
I'll try to answer your question"What must they do for you to think that war is necessary?".As I've allready stated,I don't believe in war,but I'll humor you.If there was a monster out there,we need accurate facts and above all the unadulderated truth.Unfortunately,this is practically impossible in that the aggressor will allways try to make his victim look like the aggressor,so he can justify his need to attack and win support for it.They could make my mother look like a terrorist and a threat to national security.Truth and justice are reguraly being altered by our government according to it's present needs and presented as fact to the american people.And what will this war solve? As Edward Kenendy said in the debate on the senate floor:"Indeed,by launching a war against Iraq now,before other alternatives are tried in good faith,the U.S may well precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing".That goes along with my belief that U.S.foreign policy of playing God in the region has bred the very evils we seek to eradicate.

Rick

10-06-2002, 11:42 AM

There's a joke here somewhere but I'll pass on it.

Seriously though, I just don't believe it when someone says they don't believe in war at all. That's saying that we were wrong to fight in any of the wars in the past, Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War II. So, I guess we should have just let all of those things happen and hoped that we'd be treated well by the winner. You'd have to believe that we don't need any police either and be saying that you'd do nothing to protect your family if they were attacked by a criminal. Anyone who uses this kind of faulty logic is dreaming of an ideal world and hoping that the rest of us will make everything OK. It's a completely different thing to say that you disagree with the need to go to war THIS time than it is to say that NO war is justified.

Dave Schwartz

10-06-2002, 08:49 PM

Amazin,

Thank you for taking the time, although I find the "humor me" part a bit insulting.

I must have missed the post where you said that you "do not believe in war." Does that mean categofically, that you could never support war under any circumstances?

What I gather from your message is that if we had another 9/11 or a dozen more 9/11s, and that the financing (for example) came from Iraq, you would not trust the information source that claimed it came from Iraq and you would want us to do... what?

What would you have us do?

When you say, "All other alternatives should be exhausted," what does that mean with Iraq? Does that mean continued negotiations? For how long? Is there a point where we say, "enough?"

Dave

Dave Schwartz

10-06-2002, 09:39 PM

Amazin,

Thank you for taking the time to offer insight into your position.

While I certainly have a significantly different outlook on things than you do, I respect the fact that you stated your position with clarity and passion.

As I saw in someone's signature on a horse newsgroup somewhere, often wrong, but never in doubt. One of us is likely wrong, but certainly neither of us is in doubt.

Warm Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Amazin

10-06-2002, 11:48 PM

Dave:
No insult intended on the "humor me".I said that because I don't believe in war and had
to make a hypothetical scenario where I would think war justified.You misread the part saying "all alternatives exhausted".That was
a quote from Kenedy,not me,so I can't tell you what his mindset is on it.You ask my opinion on
another 9/11.Would I trust the info about it.Definetely not.I don't trust the info on the present 9/11.
As I said at the end of my last message,due to our foreign policy in the region,we are breeding
the need other countries feel to perform terrorist acts against the United States.The press has
not said much about the "why's" of 9/11.The little explanation they offer borders on the absurd.Explanations
such as "They're jealous".They think we live in sin.Or they want the 82 virgins promised them when they
go to heaven.Or they're fanatics.This is truth?If so then why haven't people from that region been doing these "terrorist"
activities for alot longer in this country.It's only been in the last decade or so.It also happens to coincide with
U.S.military escalation in the area.As I mentioned,the U.S.has been quitely bombing Iraq since the Gulf war.
Over one million have died.The U.S. is the only country in the world,that does not condemn Israel
when it performs deplorable acts but condemns Arafat when he doesn't condemn deplorable acts and continues to support Israel with Billions of dollars every
year to continue what the U.N. and the world has condemmned.I can go on,but the point is if you were
on the other side,I think you'd get a little pissed off too.They're human,and its human nature to do whatever
it takes to stop what they rightly consider abuse by the United States.
And like the Vietcong,they know they have no shot fighting the U.S. in traditional warfare,so they
employ alternative means.I am not saying that their response is right,remember,I don't believe in
war,but I understand the cause.Our government knows it too,but if they told the truth,they know
there would be riots in the streets.

Dave and Rick:
You both ask the same question about my"Idealistic" no war belief.I'll try to answer that in another message.
This is long enough .For now I'll just ask you a question.What are you defending with your pro war attitude?The death
and misery of millions of people?You can rationalize it all you want,but in the end,that will be the result.

BillW

10-07-2002, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Amazin
As I mentioned,the U.S.has been quitely bombing Iraq since the Gulf war.
Over one million have died.

Amazin,

Please provide a reference ... I'd be interested in reading about this.

Bill

Tom

10-07-2002, 08:14 AM

If you think back, the US escalation in the last decade was:
1. UN sanctioned
2. In direct response to SoDamn Insane invading Kuwait.

Which leads us back to.....HE IS A THREAT.

I find it very hardf to believe millions are dying and no one is hearing about it. wherre did you get that from? I would love to read it.

Larry Hamilton

10-07-2002, 09:21 AM

whoops

Dave Schwartz

10-07-2002, 11:28 AM

Amazin,

>>>What are you defending with your pro war attitude?<<<

I assume you mean, "How can I take this position?"

It is very simple. I believe in the democratic process.

Perhaps that is to simple. I will explain. In the democratic process we elect leaders. We agree, by living here, to be governed under the democratic system. When the "people" mandate something, I believe it is my responsibility to follow it.

Well, the people have mandated that we should follow the leaders we have elected. If our leaders believe that we should go to war, then I consider the rest of us bound to follow.

Now, does that make me a weak-minded sheep? Certainly not. If I truly do not believe that I, personally, should follow these leaders then I should find a new flock... I should relocate somewhere with a society that believes like I do.

Wait, you might say. I do not believe in these leaders and am trying to change the system... How are you trying to change it? Change, in a democratic society should be done through support as well as campaigning and voting.

Picture a small group of people... perhaps 20... starting a settlement on a remote island. They vote for leadership. After a period of time has gone by, 4 or 5 of the people dissent about why things are being done the way they are. These people have the right (and perhaps the responsibility) to camaign and lobby to get the others to see their point of view and change their vote.

But, while the campaigning continues (perhaps indefinitely) these people should support the needs of the group as a whole. And "support the needs of the whole" includes following the current leadership.

In our society it has become okay to be a "country of one." That is, we decide we don't like something and we're simply going to "do it our way."

During the days of Viet Nam I was very gung ho because I had been taught to "hate the godless coimmunists." Untimately, I came to not agree with the way the Viet Nam war was fought. (A trip to Viet Nam in the late '60s or early '70s would have done that to many people.) My disagreement was that we did not fight a war, we fought a limited war because of politics. And that was, in my opinion, the failing of our leadership to make the tough decisions. The were elected to make those decisions and live by them. Instead, they were too worrried about getting re-elected.

Had we fought that war to win, and won, there would not be so many heroes from that era walking around without as near-cadavers, having done their part and being let down by society.

Did I say "society" and no leaders? You bet I did. See, it was society that did not follow the democratic process... you vote for your leaders and then you follow those who are elected. You don't have to like the law of the land, but you should follow it.

More to come...

Dave Schwartz

10-07-2002, 11:52 AM

more...

Okay, so back to your question...

>>>What are you defending with your pro war attitude?<<<

I believe that terrorism is not going to stop by itself. It will have to be stopped (if it can). You will not legislate terrorism away, neither will you negotiate it away any more than you can negotiate or rehab people away from violence in the US.

You stop violence with a zero-tolerance policy for it. You stop terrorism in a similar fashion. You stop it by making the heroes of the terrorism villains to their own people.

Do I advocate the deaths of innocent civilians? No. But, if those civilians are supporting terrorism then they are not innocent. It is them that the terrorists are acting FOR.

Sure, their religious beliefs play a huge part, but if there was nobody telling them what heroes they will be to die for Allah, their would be only a handful of true zealots to deal with.

According to your beliefs, our leaders cannot be trusted. Yet you believe Saddam Hussein when he says he has no biological weapons?

And understand that he has no right to keep biological weapons.

Try this analogy... You have a child that goes to a local elementary school. One of the other children has been threatening children on the way home from school. When confronted, the child says, that if you mess with him, something ugly is going to happen. Do you, as a parent, demand action NOW or do you wait for an act to be committed? I suggest that every parent among us would demand immediate action.

So, the child infers to his peers that he has a gun, though nobody has ever seen it. His peers are terrified. It changes their way of living. They no longer want to go to school. The child is confronted by authorities and says, "You can search me and my locker, but you don't have the right to search my room at home."

Because of past violent history, he is searched, except for his closet at home because that is his special place. If he has a gun, where do you suppose he keeps it?

There is a point in time when this one student has the power of disrupting the entire fabric of society at his school. Even the authorities become afraid of him. Action must be taken.

He then says, that if you try to search him, terrible things will happen.

Has he done anything wrong? Yes! He has committed violent acts in the past and is using that past history as part of the intimidation process for the future. He owes it to society to display all. If he has a weapon hidden in his secret place, it needs to be taken away, by force if necessary.

And what of his parents? What if they support his privacy, and, worse yet, his actions? If and when he commits his crimes are they culpable as well? I contend they are.

Back to the real world...

Saddam is the child. The people of his society are his parents because, ultimately, they control him. And lest you think it is any other way, remember that every society is responsbile for its leaders.

In fact, if you believe that Saddam is responsible for his society's belief then you would be offereing other reasons why he should be removed.

Saddam is supporting terrorism. He is not innocent. Those who support him are not innocent either. In the war on terrorism, that makes them, ALL OF THEM, the enemy.

Let he who is against Saddam come forward and voice his support for non-violence. He should be proclaimed innocent. Will they be killed by Saddam? Probably. The others will become known as "the enemy."

So, in answer to your question, I support killing the enemy.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Lefty

10-07-2002, 12:12 PM

Amazing, Why are they doing it? Who cares why? The cold hard fact is: THEY DID IT. Now we must stop them.
If one million died the liberal press would be all over it. We have too many people in this country who want to blame this country for the ills of the world.
The problem with this world boils down to one thing. NOT ENOUGH DEMOCRACY.

Rick

10-07-2002, 04:00 PM

Warning to all innocent civilians in Baghdad: We're coming to take out your government. You have more than adequate time to go somewhere else and stay out of the way while we're doing it. If you stay and allow the Iraqi military to hide behind you or take up arms yourself, you will be considered the enemy and dealt with accordingly.

Lefty

10-07-2002, 07:32 PM

Most of the oppressed citizens of Baghdad will emerge from their hiding places and revel in their freedom when we're done.

BillW

10-07-2002, 08:04 PM

I would imagine that censorship is such that they know of nothing that is going on (as occured in Afganistan) and are being told only that the evil empire is coming to kill them. So it may not be that easy.

Bill

Tom

10-07-2002, 11:47 PM

Didn't they tell the Iraqi soldiers during the Gulf War that the Americans were cannibals and would eat them? And the believed it? I remeber that from TV or something back then.
I don't think the average Joe-Iraqi has any reason to think we are anything but an evil empire. I don't think we can expect an outpouring of thanks or help or anything. I did hear that Iraqi lawyers in exile have asked to have Sodam tried for war crimes.

After hearing W's speech tonight, I just don't see anyone can disagree with the plan he has outlined - which leaves the fate of Sodamn Insane in his own hands. But it is blatantly clear, you can never trust this maniac. He is little Hitler wannabe.
I do miss Geroge Sr.'s cute little way he called him "saad-um."
Or as they call him in Afgahnistan "Saaaaaaaad-um".
Itwould be nice to settle this thing without a war, but name me one murdering dictator that ever settled anything without killing? Can't think of any.

Triple Trio

10-08-2002, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Rick
Warning to all innocent civilians in Baghdad: We're coming to take out your government. You have more than adequate time to go somewhere else and stay out of the way while we're doing it. If you stay and allow the Iraqi military to hide behind you or take up arms yourself, you will be considered the enemy and dealt with accordingly.

Is this meant to be a joke or do you really think that the Iraqis can move about the country freely as they please? Either way, it's not an excuse for murdering innocent children, women and the sick who will have no choice but be forced to stay put. I know sooner or later someone will say by ending their lives the US is doing them a favor by ending their miseries.

Amazin

10-08-2002, 01:34 AM

BIllW,Tom and others:

Regarding my statement that we have been bombing Iraq since the Gulf war,I first heard about it from a friend,and then verified it through small newspaper articles when an incident occurred.Then I heard it about it on a free speech radio program.I'm trying to get my source to get me something but I can start with this link for now.
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
Note the list only goes back about 3 years and they are working on the rest
Dave:
Will answer you soon.

freeneasy

10-08-2002, 01:54 AM

well s..t here I go again
what will it take ? that question was ask and should have been answer long ago, there shouldnt even be the question " what will it take " at this stage of the game. At this stage of the game we should have already been there, done that, and back home for din din.
The question " what will it take " was put to the Iraqi goverment in the form of the terms and conditions to accept in exchange for the laying down of their arms. And (as we should have seen it, and taken up forced intrutionary measures long ago when they ignored those terms) part of the conditions for the acceptance of the Iraqui surrender was the open inspection of their factories, plants, and so on.
Now the first sign of resistence to these open inspections, tells ( screams at ) you something of grave matter and importance is being developed at these plants and must be protected. Gee, what could something like that possible be ? Oh I know, its a Tootsie Roll plant and they want to suprise and shower the whole world with millions and millions of free tootsie rolls as a gesture of regret and sorrow for their acts of unprovoked human slaughter.
These guys had this whole thing planned out since day one when we let Captain Shithead off the hit list.
When I say they had this planned out I mean whadayathnk their doin this whole trime. Plannin out a statagy to keep the open inspections out. They got their stratagist, their thinkers, their planners, Just like Hitler had his. Know your enemies, his strenghts, his weaknesses ect. ect. You think his staff doesnt study our system of fairness and justice, our system of laws and rights, world opinion and where the the nations of the world would pretty much all stand on a forced invastion into ther land. You think they didnt figure it would take us up until now to finally ok a legal invasion.
Shit, all these guys had to do was lay low, stay out of trouble, which in the eyes of the world would make any invading force, upholding the statutes of a broken treaty, look like a bunch of murdering fiends, when an invaded nation of peacefuls defends itself from a body of force sent in to enfoce prior conditions of surrender.
Iam convinced they had a damn accurate idea that they could break the condition of inspection levied upon them, and that it would take years before enforcement would finally come about, giving themselfs ample but hurried time to effectively complete, solidify, move, change, hide, black out and cover up whatever it is, buildup they are preparing for. Hey, coffees hot.

Dave Schwartz

10-08-2002, 10:30 AM

Amazin,

Why is it you find it so difficult to believe anything YOUR government says but you assume that everyone else is telling the truth?

Dave

Amazin

10-08-2002, 11:07 AM

To All

Regarding my statement that One million Iraqi's have been killed,during the last 10 years.Check out this site Educate
yourself a little about the situation.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq.asp
Dave:
Excellent question in your last statement
because I was wondering the same thing about you.Why do you believe everything your government tells you when there is strong evidence to the contrary.Hope you check out the two links I've posted.

Lefty

10-08-2002, 12:21 PM

If one million Iraqui's have died it's their leader's fault not ours. He broke the agreements not us.
Dave made a cogent statement. I wonder too,,why so many americans want to put this country down and believe every little tinhorn dictator on Earth. You're insulting every brave American who ever died for your freedoms.
Live in Iraq and insult Sadaam and see what happens to you.
THAT is what makes us different and better than the rest of the world.

Dave Schwartz

10-08-2002, 12:26 PM

Amazin,

I do not believe everything the US government tells me. However, I do see what is happening in the world and what I am hearing is consistent with what I am seeing.

You point me to a website that lists bomb attacks. Did you SEE proof of the ones that were not widely desseminated? Whose website is that? Why do you have confidence in them? Because they are anti-American?

Do you know about the "great lie," as it has been called? I believe it was Dateline or 20/20 which did a story on the lie that has become accepted fact in the mid-east... that 4,000 Jews called in sick on 9/11, which "proves" that Israel was behind the attack. Hog wash!

But it is what the Muslim world (apparently) believes because there was a website that said it was true. That is as crazy as the notion that there was no holocaust. (You don't believe that, do you? There are websites that support that as well.)

Dave Schwartz

Amazin

10-08-2002, 03:16 PM

Dave:
The website with the bomb attacks are
simply a collection of bombings reported by Reuters or the Associated Press.If you clicked on any of the dates,you would see it's source.You can check the validity of the origin of the reports with those two agencies.Unless you're telling me that these two agencies are also against the U.S.Also take a look at the second website,that is the more important one.Try to be a little open minded about this.Just because they make the U.S. government look bad doesn't mean it's unamerican if it's the truth.This country was started from dissent and it's strength is in it's ability to handle the truth.I consider it unpatritoic to try to silence the truth and be close minded about it,and we must obey everything our leader says.This is closer to a dictatorship .

Dave Schwartz

10-08-2002, 03:57 PM

Amazin,

Here is a quote from one of the bombing dates I gathered at random...

"U.S. and British planes patrolling a no-fly zone over northern Iraq bombed Iraqi air defense systems Friday in response to anti-aircraft fire, U.S. officials said."

I have no problem with this. Why is this a bad thing? We flew, they attacked with anti-aircraft fire, we bombed. And the problem is?...

If the Iraqis had not attacked, there would have been no retaliation.

Have you considered you should be complaining about Hussein? Oh, wait! People in Iraq aren't allowed to complain! I forgot! Did you?

I ask again, why is it that you have such a hard time ever taking your country's side as true and right and such an easy time of assuming that the other guy is right?

Have you considered, if you dislike this country and its ways so much, that perhaps you should not be an American? Perhaps you should consider living somewhere else?

I say this without any rancor whatsoever. I mean it sincerely. Perhaps what America stands for is not for you.

Let me ask you this question... What country do you feel best represents your ideals as a human being? How does America measure up on that list? How about Iraq? How do they measure up?

Dave Schwartz

Tom

10-08-2002, 09:55 PM

I didn't read to many of the specific accounts, but everyone I did had a common thread....the bombings were in respones to Iraq firing on US and Brttish planes legally flying in the no fly zone.
Amazin...don't you get it yet?
Iraq surrendered and the hostilities were halted conditionally. Iraq has violated all the conditions, so the hostillities resume.
It's a lot like buying a house. You live in it, pay your rent, and all is fine. Stop paying the rent and you get evicted. OR is the big bad bank to villan here, too???
Dave makes a good point...why do you choose to think the US and Brittian are the liars and the rest of the world is telling the truth?
Here is direct quote from your second link:
Saddam Hussain, whom the US helped to bring in to power in the 1980s, remains unaffected while the Iraqi people suffer.

This just underscores what a piece of garbage Sadamn is - he lets his people suffer and die while he lives like a king! HE could do something about it but he chooses to ignore his own people,
many of whom he choose to gas previously! What a role model!
Just in case I haven't made myself clear on this isse...
KILL HUSSIEN NOW!

Amazin

10-09-2002, 01:02 PM

Quote From Dave:
" Have you considered, if you dislike this country and its ways so much, that perhaps you should not be an American? Perhaps you should consider living somewhere else?"
I can't believe you said that.It's allmost funny.If you believe that, then you should also say that to half of the U.S.senate,to the thousands of demonstrations that took part in anti-war rallies last Sunday(27 different locations around the country).Also there were 400,000 demonstrators in England and 1-1/2 million in Italy,to name a few.Oh I forgot the vatican and the pope.But they don't live here so they don't count.
You shoud say your quote to yourself,because I consider people with that attitude to be UnAmerican.
If there were no checks and balances in this country and everyone was a traiter because they don't see things your way,then where would this country be.Certainly not a democracy anymore.Your attitude is unhealthy .If you have a point to make,then make it.I supplied you with 2 websites backing up my claims.You can make what you want of them,I can't help that.But if you can't discuss an issue without throwing worn out slanderous slogans,I suppose you'll never make the Senate.They are debating it,which I thought we were.I can also lay a few on you.But then we're not discussing the issues anymore,are we?

Rick

10-09-2002, 02:42 PM

Triple Trio,

No it wasn't a joke. Smart civilians moved out of the way in Afghanastan. If you're in the middle of a war zone and you're not planning on fighting in the war, you have an obligation to your family to move them out of harm's way. The same thing occurs in confrontations between police and criminals every day. It may be inconvenient but it's necessary. Staying behind and sheltering the military is not necessary and makes you the enemy. We see people donating blood to create banners painted with it supporting Saddam. And Iraqi civilians are volunteering for military training so they can fight along with them in Baghdad. They aren't ALL innocent civilians.

How many people in history have LOST a war and remained in power? I can't think of any others. If I recall correctly, it's the WINNER of the war who makes the rules.

Dave Schwartz

10-09-2002, 04:24 PM

Amazin,

I am sorry that that came off so offensive to you. I can understand why it would. Please accept my apology.

I was not saying that you have no right to be an American. I am simply asking why you would want to be an American since you don't believe anything our government says. If the Iraqis and others are so much more trustworthy than America, how can you stand being one? It must cause you terrible shame.

Me? I still get chills when I hear the Start Spangled Banner.

That is the way democracy is supposed to work: You don't like something, you work to change it. But what many in our country leave out is the part where you cooperate with the program along the way.

Call me a neanderthal if you will, but I am proud to be an American. The United States is the greatest country in the world. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. But it is the best.

Do I trust and believe everything that they say? No, I do not. Do I think that corruption exists? Even more than there is in horse racing.

And I don't believe that "patriotism" is a bad word. Amazingly, some people do. Do you think that "patriotism" is "too political?"

You, like most people with these "war is just always wrong" positions, put forth no workable alternatives. Just the same old litany; "There must be a better way."

To paraphrase a quote from my wife, "We've been searching for a 'better way' to deal with tyrants for thousands of years. If you've got something better than war THAT WORKS we'd like to hear it."

Seems like this country is divided into DOers and TALKers.

There is an article on MSNBC about the Democratic party that addresses this quite well.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/816086.asp

You asked me a question in a previous thread: "You've lost me.Are you saying Iraq has done something directly to us to prompt military action.If so enlighten me."

Why does it have to be direct? A guy threatens you daily but nothing should be done until he actually attacks?

Bottom line is that Saddam wiggled off the hook in Desert Storm because he made promises. It is way past time to pay up on those promises and he STILL won't. And the talkers are still talking just like last time.

I think the best we can do is agree to disagree. It only gets worse from here, so let's wind it down soon, shall we?

Respectfully,
Dave Schwartz

10-09-2002, 04:33 PM

As someone who will probably spend time there if we go to war, I still say we need to go now. This should have been taken care of years ago, but it wasn't. The longer he is left unchecked the harder it is going to be to displace him in the future and the worse the loss of American lives.

CJ

Rick

10-09-2002, 04:54 PM

CJ,

It ain't gonna be easy though since we waited so long. Being on the offensive requires about 3 times the force that defending does. Fighting with chemical/biological protection slows you down tremendously and reduces your combat effectiveness. Fighting in a urban areas is more difficult than in the open. And trying to fight their military with civilians in the way will be even tougher. Add to that the tendency for politicians to micromanage the war, especially when civilian collateral damage is involved, and you have the potential for a very ugly outcome. I hope I'm wrong and someone has a brilliant plan that ends it quickly. If the military is confident of a favorable outcome, I'll trust their judgement. I worked with quite a few very intelligent military people during my career in simulation and I wouldn't be surprised to see them pull a rabbit out of the hat.

Amazin

10-09-2002, 05:22 PM

Dave:
Apology accepted.When you started this thread,I think you wanted to hear from people with opposite opinions.I was just as interested to hear those opposite to mine.One thing I feel you should understand is that people who have my opinion on the subject (and there are a substantial number) care for this country as much as your side.We both want justice and to do what's right.Also you cannot say that if people disagree with you on one issue,they are not pro American.America is not that small.There are hundreds of other issues.Obviously there are things I like about America or you would be right:I wouldn't live here.You wouldn't have to tell me.But even you admit America is not perfect.So when there is an injustice I feel it is the DUTY of the american citizen to speak up.That doesn't make America weaker.As far as my anti-war attitutude,If you want solutions,it will will not come from politicians or wars.It will only come from within each individual.People on this planet are at different levels of consciousness and awareness.I'm not surprised by the state of the world because in my opinion we are in a primitive stage of our evolution.Rather barbaric.Our problems on this planet are a spec of dust in the scheme of things.Just think,we're a spec on this planet,which is a spec in our galaxy,which is a spec in our universe.There's a power much greater than any bomb this planet can ever produce.I have glimpsed it and it has changed me.Has nothing to do with religion.It is what brought you into this world.As people become aware of it,the more conscious they will become of their fellow man.Signing off on this subject,nice talking with you Dave.

PaceAdvantage

10-09-2002, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Amazin,

...I was not saying that you have no right to be an American. I am simply asking why you would want to be an American since you don't believe anything our government says...

Sorry, have to jump in here. Not believing in anything the government has to say should be mutually exclusive of whether one wants or does not want to be an American.

One can easily not believe a word coming out of Washington, and STILL be as patriotic as the guy waving his flag and joining the Freedom Corps.....

That's what makes this country amazing, beautiful, and the best country in the world. The guy who doesn't believe a word the government says can exercise his American RIGHT to CHANGE the government through his right to VOTE, his right to ASSEMBLE, his FREEDOM OF SPEECH, etc.....Our founding fathers DESIGNED this country and this democracy with these types of governments IN MIND. That's why all the checks and balances are there, and that's why the Constitution is there.....

Thus, one can either believe or dismiss every word that comes out of the government, and still be a 100% American to the bone...

JMHO,

==PA

Aussieplayer

10-09-2002, 06:58 PM

Dave said, "The United States is the greatest country in the world. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. But it is the best."

......Actually, Australia is the greatest country in the world, we just don't realise it enough! How I wish a bit of your patriotism would make its way down here. Unfortunately, we are a nation of, "baggers."

Anyway - serious question, what would be the attitude towards a group of Austalians putting up the Aussie flag on a very prominent American icon? (Sorry you won't have a clue what I'm on about - something I was discussing with someone).

Cheers
AP

Rick

10-09-2002, 06:58 PM

Those of us who served during Vietnam have seen many become pacifists and leave the rest of us holding the bag. That was a whole lot tougher war to support than this one. Amazin is lucky they don't have the draft any more or he would be forced to decide whether to join the military or leave the country. But maybe he's too old and doesn't have any sons. Freedom of speech is great, but if your country calls you, you have to go.

Rick

10-09-2002, 07:10 PM

AP,

What do you mean by "baggers"? Every Aussie I've known was proud of his country and rightfully so.

Aussieplayer

10-09-2002, 07:35 PM

Rick,

We're a funny nation. We're proud of it, yes. But, we're also famous for our "tall poppy syndrome" - we cut down those who dare to do well. As I understand it, quite the 180 opposite from the American culture who look up, and seek to emulate, those who do well in a particular field.

Hey - hope I didn't come across anti-american with the flag thing. Far from it. (Something unrelated to the war thing that I was talking about with somebody.) Australian's need to get rid of the tall poppy syndrome for this nation to truly excell.

Cheers & best,
AP

Tom

10-09-2002, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Aussieplayer

Anyway - serious question, what would be the attitude towards a group of Austalians putting up the Aussie flag on a very prominent American icon? (Sorry you won't have a clue what I'm on about - something I was discussing with someone).

Cheers
AP

What does icon mean- a building, statue, monument?
Personally, I don't put much importance on flags or the like.
I don't get chills when I hear the anthem, I don't choke up when Isee old glory. I think it is a great inconvenience to have stand for the playing of the national anthem at the races. What the hell does that have to do with racing. I only stand because it avoids the inevitable hassle from grumpy old men when I don't.
I would rather show my respect/allieginece in my own way, everyday, in my actions and interactions with others and in how I vote. jsut watch everyone standing up while the anthem plays at the track tomorrow - how many are staring at the flag and how many are staring at the DRF laid open on thier tables?
I think patriotism is a dangerous thing because it can lead to irrational behavior rather easily. It is the same emotion that was imortlized in that famous black and white footage of Hitler addressing a huge crowd at night, with the whooping and hollering and goose-stepping growing as the crownd went into a frenzy. It can lead to mob mentallity like what takes hold in a riot.
I think you can be patriotic without going wild, but some can't.
I don't see any reason why our people cannot fly thier own flags with pride here, but many do it to be antoganistic. And too many bleeding hearts want to prohibit US citizens from displaying their
flags at school or at work becaue it would offend muslim co-workers or students. What garbage! If you are offended by the American flag, why did you come here at all, Guests don't have the right to complain about the decorations in our house. If you opened a store in NY and flew the Aussie flag out in front, fine. I would not be offended. If you flew it over Arlinton cemetary, I would probably have something to say about it. If you carried it in a memorial day parade, you might expect to have some one take it away from you. If you carried it in the parade and wore your uniform and were celebrating an Aussie-American friendship from the war, I might help you carry it.
It is all in the intent. I won't be offended if your intention is not to offend me. If it is, I will react accordingly. The only flag I really have a problem with is the Nazi flag, which I think should be banned. Even in a country of free speech, I have to draw the line.

Dave Schwartz

10-09-2002, 08:49 PM

PA,

I agree with everything that you said.

My intention was not to suggest that Amazin should not be an American. No matter how I wrote it, it always sounded that way.

My point was simply that the U.S. is not the bad guy! We are the good guys!

Dave

Aussieplayer

10-09-2002, 09:06 PM

Tom,

Thanks for that - & I agree with your sentiments. Intent.

We invited firefighters from the US to come to Australia to unwind after 911, and paid for the trip. They put the American flag on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

At the time, I didn't know why, I just felt a little "weird" about it. Like, I thought, "Hey, love having you here. Don't mind one iota that my taxes helped bring you here. You deserve it & would hopefully do the same back for us. But you're also OUR guests. Would maybe have been nicer to put up the Aussie flag or something."

In hindsight, I should have considered the intent behind it. At the time, it felt to me more Australia had become an extra State of America - but I was probably wrong to feel that way.

Sorry for being off-topic by the way!!!

Also......love talking openly like this. This has been a debate (or whatever), where people have tried their hardest not to be offensive or anything.

What a wonderful part of the web to hang out!!

Cheers
AP

Aussieplayer

10-09-2002, 09:13 PM

PS. Agree very much re: the Nazi flag. In this matter we should have the same attitude as the Gremans - any such Nazi stuff is a criminal offense.

At my local RSL (returned servicemem's league), I saw the swaztika (spelling?) painted on a car park wall. Made me sick. Thanks for reminding me, I will make sure it is removed if it has not already been.

Cheers
AP

Rick

10-10-2002, 11:14 AM

AP,

I understand your feelings about the flag. Although I'm sure they intended no disrespect to Australia, it probably would have been more appropriate to display both flags. That's usually seen as a symbol of friendship and I think that's what they really intended. I'm sure you know that Australians are wildly popular in the US and some of the most popular celebrities are from there. Also, just about everyone I know would love to visit there if they had a chance. I'm 99.99% sure those guys were being more patriotic than arrogant.

Aussieplayer

10-10-2002, 08:37 PM

Rick,

That's a good thought - both flags would have been nice!
And I agree 100% absolutely, that it was probably more a matter of being patriotic.

I'm glad for all the handicapping friends I'll have in the States, should I ever (hopefully) make my way up there!! :)

Steve
AP

Dave Mark

10-12-2002, 02:21 AM

Dave S.

The Only time we should go into Iraq is when the United States as a soverign nation feels threatened.

When and if our security as a whole country would be in jeopardy.

The reasons behind what President Bush wants to do are not related solely to threatened security of the United States, but very much to do with controling oil prices, of which he is a major player. He also has other plans of which the public is not being told, but a good guess has to do with his goal of World Order.

Also very important, we have absolutely NO right to go in to another country and attempt to change their political situation.

IMHO, I do not believe Iraq is a Major danger to the United States, I don't think they have weapons of mass destruction either.
I certainly do agree that Iraq has been and most likely is behind or connected to Binladin and his groups.
Definitely I feel Iraq is a 10-15 year from now danger, but there are better plans to disarm whatever weapons they are working on.

The question you have to ask yourself, if we do deceide to wage war against Iraq, and do not declare WAR, will we wind up with another Viet Nam?
Also, what do we do after bombing Iraq?
N. Korea? Parts of China? Iran? Do you really think you can trust the Russian leader?

The ramifications on the world could take a huge toll for the worse if we deceide to crush Iraq, especially when certain so called allies are not behind us.

And you think it's tough making deceisions on an 8-5 shot?

History is about to find out where President Bush stands as far as our leaders.

Stay Tuned!

Rick

10-12-2002, 04:54 AM

Dave M,

I think the war on Iraq is really mostly about protecting Israel, which is certainly at risk because of Saddam Hussein. The lack of support from allies can also be largely attributed to that.

Dave Schwartz

10-12-2002, 05:18 AM

Rick & Dave M,

I can only say that I strongly disagree with this position.

I believe that Iraq has given us plenty of reason to attack, both morally and ethically.

Dave

Tom

10-12-2002, 11:03 AM

Watched the old news coverage from the 1962 Cuban blockade on cable. Scarry stuff. I ws only a kid then, but I still remember the very reral fear that swept the country. WW3 was a real possibility.
I had to do a "sigh" when they showed the coverage of Adeli Stevenson confronting the Russian ambassador. Even back then, the UN was just a useless, ineffective organization of loser nations. Why, oh, why do we continue to waste our time on it? Why don't we just close NYC to all those scofflaw bums claiming diplomatic immunity and let the 12th precinct run them in?
As long as we're going to be in the neighborhood (Irag) maybe we should stop of at Egypt and collect the $11million in parking/traffic fines they owe NYC. Would be a nice start to pay the cost of cleaning up the mess the islamic wackos caused on 9-11.

Rick

10-12-2002, 01:30 PM

Dave S,

I'm not saying we shouldn't attack Iraq, just explaining what I think is the most important reason. So many people think that it's all about oil and I just don't understand that position. Our imports from Iraq are microscopic and we have many other better alternatives. I think that the government realizes that if Hussein gets nuclear weapons, he'll launch on Israel and they will retaliate. That's a very real possibility that could start another world war. BUT, the politically correct thing these days is for them to not offend the Arab world by bending over backwards to look like we don't support Israel. That's why we let the Palestinians get away with so much. It really is disgusting, but I think that's the way it really is. In Europe, there are still a lot of countries that are anti-Israel as well and again I think that's why they won't join a coalition or even support us in the UN.

Please don't confuse my position with Dave M's. It's totally different.

The reason I wanted to make that point is that many people here are trying to imagine Iraq threatening the US by launching something here. I think you'd agree that a scenario like that is highly unlikely. So, some won't support a war because they don't see a real threat. It's only when you look at what he's likely to do in the region that you can understand why he might be an imminent threat.

freeneasy

10-12-2002, 01:44 PM

there it is Rick, there it is

Larry Hamilton

10-12-2002, 02:29 PM

while I will agree they (Iraq) is some time from launching a nuke or chem/bio missile at us. Let us not forget that present technology makes any of the 3 weapons one man-portable! Which means on any given day, an Iraqi can waltz across either of our borders without much problem with an ordinary looking suitcase/truck or perhaps a short boat ride from cuba.

The point is, any of these crazies with weapons of mass destructions are a threat to the world. It is beyond me why we argue about the minutia when the problem is here, now, and potential...

PaceAdvantage

10-12-2002, 02:31 PM

Does everyone forget the first "War" with Iraq about 10 years ago??? I was hearing the same things back then...."oh, we will be bogged down...another Vietnam...etc....etc"

What's changed since then?? We summarily destroyed them in Desert Storm. If anything, they should be much WEAKER this time around, unless they've completely rebuilt and replaced everything they lost the first time around, which is hard to believe.....

It will be over in a proverbial blink of an eye....IMHO....

Now, I haven't stated my opinion on whether I think military action against Iraq is just....just stating the fact that it shouldn't be a very tough fight. Anyone who disagrees, please let me know why it would be more difficult the second time around...

==PA

Larry Hamilton

10-12-2002, 02:43 PM

It may be over in a blink. But remember two things made that possible last time..Months of concentrated air force pounding. This was made possible by the Iraqis allowing us to stage the air craft in strategic location without intervention and, iraqis allowing us to put the troops on the ground in sufficient numbers to kick their ass.

Now Saddam may be no military genius, but what do you think is going to happen when he sees us stacking up troops and air craft on his border again? What would you do given history? You cant win by letting the US pound you (thats proven)...So you attach the staging assets. You never let the invaders (us) get set... You disurpt them from the beginning...This is the only way he can defeat us--dont let us make the first move and keep our supply lines of military stuff in disarray.
One way to do this is (blow up/poison stuff in the US, another is provide support to the rebirth of the hippie movement....

FOr those of you who were adults in the 60's parts of this should sound damned familiar...

Rick

10-12-2002, 03:18 PM

PA,

The Iraqis have already said that they'll let us take the desert and just defend Baghdad since they know they don't stand a chance out it the open. So they'll be hiding behind civilians and we'll be trying to smoke them out without inflicting the politically incorrect collateral damage to civilians. Not so easy and not something we have a lot of experience in. Let's hope our miliary learned a lot from Somalia. Also, they'll have to consider a chemical or biological strike and wear the protective clothing, which slows you down considerably. On top of that, Hussein is quite likely to launch something at Israel again like he did the last time (or worse). So now you have Israel wanting to strike back while our troops are invading, a situation which must be carefully coordinated. And I don't think we can ask them to just sit back and take it like they did the last time.

Then, we win the war and occupy Iraq as "peacekeepers" for the next 10 years. Well, our troops haven't done very well in that role before either. Again, our weakness is that we expect the military to take losses and protect civilians at all cost.

BUT, it's only going to get worse in the future, so there's no sense wishing we would have done something before when it was less costly. Let's roll!

Larry Hamilton

10-12-2002, 03:28 PM

you missed my point, I think, you dont gas and nuke the soldiers--you gas and nuke the civilians--us! You break the spirit of the fighting man by killing his family.

We have so many Chamberlain-like citizens in this country, first blood they will run

Triple Trio

10-12-2002, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Now, I haven't stated my opinion on whether I think military action against Iraq is just....just stating the fact that it shouldn't be a very tough fight. Anyone who disagrees, please let me know why it would be more difficult the second time around...

PA,

One crucial difference is that the last Gulf War was a hit and run affair. This time round, there's no question of this happening. If the US forces pull out of Iraq immediately after killing Saddam Hussein, the country will descend into chaos. The US simply cannot allow this to happen, or else Iran could be the eventual winner without having to fire a single shot. To maintain order in Iraq, the US will have to maintain a sizeable military presence for a long time. And this could spell trouble as there are many Iraqis who hate Americans passionately:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/opinion/04KRIS.html

TT

Dave Mark

10-12-2002, 03:59 PM

When will we ever learn you CANNOT export your political Beliefs on other countries?

It will not work!

Bush wants a world order, and the world wants no part of it!

We lost too much in Viet Nam, where we had no right sending our soldiers to be ambushed and massacred!
Then, when after putting their lives on the line and fighting for what our government calls our freedom, they return to this country amid boos and criticism from the majority.
Personally, I have friends who fought in Viet Nam, 2 were shot, and one was in a knife fight, fortunately my friend survived.
I lost 2 friends in that undeclared war.

What have we learned from history, and what do we have to gain?

It is a sickening feeling when the body bags are flown into Dover Airbase, (among others, and then listen to Bush who himself is a Deserter, as he never served a second in our armed forces.

But it is so easy to envision his speech on why our men and women gave their lives, as if he really cares, as long as his pockets are rewarded with blood cash!

I have no more knowledge about the truth, as to why Bush wants to kill Sadam, and destroy Iraq, but my core belief is more to benefit the wealth than benefit this country and its hard working people.

There is Definitely a sleeping Giant!
Someday it WILL wake up!

Tom

10-12-2002, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
.....Let us not forget that present technology makes any of the 3 weapons one man-portable! ...

And how long before one of those crazy palestinian homicide bombers hops on an Israeli bus with a nuke under his coat?
Or a yemen-ice strolls by a US ship?

Face it, there is a real epidemic of insanity in the middle east and we have to restrict thier access to technology.

Tom

10-12-2002, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Dave Mark

There is Definitely a sleeping Giant!
Someday it WILL wake up!

It did wake up......9-11-01.
And it is hungry.
And mad.

Larry Hamilton

10-12-2002, 04:48 PM

The one thing I have learned both watching and participaing on this thread is that some of participants lack of knowledge of history and what the eventual cost of "land for peace" is. I pray that the few who exemplify this philosophy are so far in the minority as to be treated as kooks.

As to knife fights in Viet Nam--with two tours in combat units in Nam, I must confesss, that it was more likely to being decapitated with a P38 than attacked by the Cong weilding a knife.

Dave Mark

10-12-2002, 05:11 PM

Larry.

Just for the record, my friend was in a bunker with another US soldier, that soldier was killed by the Viet Nams machete, when my friend saw this he did not have time to react, as he was in very close proximity, my friend grabbed his knife, and the Viet Nam soldier cut my friend severly on his hand as he tried blocking the ensuing slice of the machete, luckily my friend killed the enemy with his knife.
The Viet Congs obviously liked to use machetes, as well you know.
Needless to say my friend still has a very nasty scar across his hand.

War is more than Hell!

Rick

10-12-2002, 05:41 PM

Larry,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a P38 a can opener?

Rick

10-12-2002, 05:51 PM

Dave M,

Does your friend think that he should have become a pacifist or gone to Canada instead and dishonored himself and his family?

Larry Hamilton

10-12-2002, 08:46 PM

BALI BOMB HELL
FIFTY-FOUR people were killed last night and nearly 130 injured - among them nine Britons - after two terrorist bombs exploded on Bali.

One of the bombs ripped through the Sari Club, a nightclub at Kuta Beach on the paradise Indonesian holiday island. Police said most of the dead were believed to be foreigners.

Larry Hamilton

10-12-2002, 08:50 PM

yes--dangerwous weapon, eh...

Larry Hamilton

10-12-2002, 08:54 PM

now change the scenery from Bali to LA and tell me what you think....

Larry Hamilton

10-12-2002, 09:00 PM

the above is from News Max..and the follwoing is from drudge

Australian foreign minister says deadly Indonesian blasts likely were terrorist attack...

Tom

10-14-2002, 07:53 PM

OK, where are all the protesters that had their shorts in a knot last week when Bush suggested that we legally obtain UN and Congressional support to force Irag to abide by the treaty whereby the Gulf War was ended? Did they miss the bombings in Bali this weekend, supposedly by Al Qaida and today endorsed by Bin Laden himself ? How come they aren't out in force denouncing the cowardly attacks on civilians? Is it that they only care about Iraqi civilians, not others?
Could it be that they don't really care about innocent civilinas at all? Could they have another, dare I say it? A-G-E-N-D-A????
Why do they shout out loud for proposed violence and keep quiet when the real deal comes along?