Support the Troops

[Anonymous]

Amen Mr.Smith, Amen.

May I just add, That there was a famous Museum In Iraq that held some of the worlds oldest archeolodigac Treasures, and is now either been Blown to smitherines, Or been looted due to the anarchist-like state over there. These treasures included Scripts, Original bible verse and stuff from the old "mesopotamia."

Now that's ashame,

It's been kept for thousands of years.

[vsmith]

Just a quick reality check,

I ve avoided this topic like the plague because of my strong feelings about the illegality of this war. Having Saddam out of power may look good now but unless everyones been sleeping, the military is loosing control of Afganistan, Iraq is in danger of becoming an Iranian suburb, and our troops are now spread so thin that the reserves are threatening mutiny because of the hardships created by the neverending war.

We have NO exit strategy,

we are there for 5-10 years and the staggering $$ costs are going to do to America what Afganistan did to the Soviet Union.

History? whats that?. Afganistan is called "where empires come to die" for good reason.

A few things to keep in mind about all this...

last time I looked it wasnt a single Iraqi on the 4 hijacked airliners,

It wasnt an Iraqi that tried to set off a bomb in his shoes.

it wasnt an Iraqi that tried to smuggle explosives into the US to attack LA International.

It wasnt an Iraqi that set off a truckbomb in the WTC in '93.

Last time I checked the UN was already hinting prior to the war the Saddam most likely did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Last time I looked, it wasnt Saddam who was responsible for the deaths at the WTC.

SO I'll say it again to all the Hawks defending the war in Iraq...

...to all those who are Hell Bent on making the rest of us believe that Saddam was the US greatest enemy #1...

...to all the chickenhawks in our government who never had to fight for their lives in battle but are more than willing to send other peoples sons and daughters to fight for special interest groups like Haliburton...

..to those sending all our troops and resources to Iraq...

...to those telling the reservist they cant go home...

WHERE THE F#K IS OSAMA !!! .......remember him???

Support the troops, but they should be looking for someone else...

If the world is safer wothout Saddam, why are airline flights being cancelled?

[edblysard]

Michale,
This is the delima we have found ourselves facing since the end of WWI.
When do we excersise the military might we created?

You say weigh each situtation on its own merits, and I say we should have a baseline for all, that baseline being the actual attack of the United States, or at least a formal declaration of war on us.
I have yet to see either.
Yes, I support the troops, my dad served many, many years before them.

I would bet they come home a much changed group of young men and women, if for nothing else that having been exposed to the total poverty and the horror a dictatorship creates.
I have nothing but pride in their service.
But I would bet quite a few of them still wonder why they were there, and what this really was all about.

Would like to look at this from a different tack, and would welcome someone explaining the merits of this to me, cause I still dont see the reason, other than saving a few cents at the pump.

Larrys right though, you cant teach a pig to sing, anymore that you can teach them to fly.
They make good barbeque, though...
Ed

[Anonymous]

Mr RRnut282, You forgot that Nazi Germany declared war on us right after Pearl Harbor and that is how we wound up fighting in Europe. When did Sadaam declare war on us? Sure he was terrible to his own people but I still say it was up to them to rectify the situation and not with the lives of Americans.

[rrnut282]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68


Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just annoys the pig and you get all dirty in the process.

Ed
I think we're not that far apart. I agree the world's policeman is a job we will tire of quickly. I am just saying we should weigh each situation on its own merits and act accordingly. I happen to think this time it was right. If there is a next time, who knows? I think it helps the morale of our soldiers to know the majority of the folks back home support them and their leaders and think that their cause for going is just.

Tell you what, you build the fire, and I'll barbeque the pig and we can get back to talking about trains

Michael

[tree68]

Ed - you're doing all right here. I'll have to add "Ed for President" to my signature, too...

It is often said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

The comments about changing a culture that have been made so far bring to mind a culture change that began in this country over 140 years ago, and in some areas may not be complete yet - the abolition of slavery. I need not delve into details, lest I ignite a firestorm. Suffice to say that you can probably still find folks around that feel that many ethnic groups have "forgotten their place." (Bear in mind that I'm not defending them.)

If we're still dealing with a 140 year old issue, what makes us think we're going to change an entire society in the foreseeable future? As has been said already (but I'll add my 2 cents), we need to make people see that our way is a good way by showing them that our way is a good way, not by beating it into them.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just annoys the pig and you get all dirty in the process.

[edblysard]

Hi Michael,

No, she ended up going home to him.
Bad habits are hard to break, and some people seem to be born to be victims.

Maybe I didnt consult with them before taking action, but sitting there, with my wife and my daughters looking first at the couple, then at me, with that "so what are you going to do?" look in their eyes, I realized that, if I did nothing, then all that I had taught my daughters about how men should treat women, and people should treat people was wasted.

And looking at a woman with a nice rosey handpring glowing on the side of her face, with one child sitting there in tears of fear and embarassement, the other hiding under the next table, the choice was easy.

I knew I could, at the least, be arrested for assualt.

Lucky me, no one could find the guy, and his wife refused to press the issue.

But, and here is the big difference...

I, and I alone would suffer the consequences of my actions.

No one else's son or daughter would die, or be imprisioned because I smacked down a bully.

Your are correct, we shouldnt allow bullies to thrive.

And as individuals, responsible only to ourselves, we should take action when faced with them.

But as a nation, no.

And sorry if I made it seem we attacked the civilian population in Iraq.
Yes, ancillary deaths do happen, its the nature of the beast, but I doubt any American serviceman caused such death on purpose.

On the other hand, the *** and the Imperial Japanese Army were intent on conquering the world by force of might, killing civilans just meant less prisioners of war to feed later.

We should be intent on conquering the world with our economic might, not our military might.

Because, unless other people want or need what we have to offer, they will never accept it, especially if we cram it down their throats.

You can choke someone on freedom.

She did, after all, walk away from police who offered her a safe haven, and went right back to the person who slapped her.

I think I didnt make it quite as clear as I wanted to.

Yes, Saddam, needed to go, as do many, many other dictators world wide.

What I was trying to get across was, who gets to pick and choose what dictator goes, and which one stays?

If the dictator is useful to the US, he stays, if not, we invade?

There isnt much of a grey area here, wrong is wrong, no matter how much oil you sell to Exxon, or how much cocaine you smuggle into the US.

If you are going to redress one wrong, then you have to redress them all, equally across the board, with no exceptions.

So, if we are going to be the morality police in Iraq, freeing the oppressed, then we better get it in gear, and start removing the rest of the despots and dictators worldwide.

Are you willing to send in the Marines every time we dont like a countries politics or leaders?

To follow your anology about spanking a child, do you routinely swat you kid because he might, at a future date, do something bad?

Preemptive spanking?

Preemptive war?

Or, do you meter out punishment, based on the severity of the offense, after the child does something wrong, in the hopes that the child will remember the punishment later, when faced with the same choices or behaviour?

Whack em first has never been a very productive parenting tool, nor a productive national policy.

Didnt work for the Japanese, or the Germans, wont work for the US either.

You dont smack your kid when he walks by the cookie jar, because you dont want him stealing the cookies, or you think he might do so later, all that does is teach him dad smacks you when dad wants to, he learns no useful lesson.

But, if you told him not to take the cookies till after dinner, then find him later in the kitchen, stuffing cookies in his mouth before dinner, then you are justified in punishing him, he knew the risk, and knows the punishment is due, and he learns he should do what dad says, or get smacked.

My point is, we, as a nation, cant enforce our version of right and wrong outside of our borders, unless we enforce it everywhere, worldwide, with no exceptions.

There can be no selective enforcement, no slack given those who we feel owe us, or those we can use to our benefit, anymore than thoses we have no use for.

Its either kick all their butts, or kick none of them, until someone throws the first punch, and then we should stomp that one persons butt.

Selectively freeing oppressed people in strategic and economicaly useful countires only makes us look like the very bullies we publicly proclaim to be removing, we become just as evil and bad, just as oppresive and repressive as the dictators we topple.

We become the invading monsters, not the saviours of the world.

Who set us up as the worlds policemen, who empowered us to free the world, who handed us the sword to smite the evil?

We forged that paticular sword ourselves,and its a mighty and powerful weapon,
capable of creating peace,
but, like all swords,
more capable of creating pain.

Its a sword we should wield very, very carefully, and one we should draw only when faced with no other option.

Sorta like slapping down a bully who is terrorizing children, and just hit a woman, you better make sure you are totally justified in doing so, or be ready to pay the price and suffer the consenquences.

In this case, the price is the lives of American servicemen and women, and the consenquences are, we look more like territorital seeking bullies than the goverment we removed.

For me, the price is too high, and the consequences to much like a insult to the years my dad and my uncle spent defending this country and its ideals, for me to comfortably sit by and keep quite.

I see and understand Michael's point, and it is a very valid one.

Do you sit by and watch bad people do bad things?

No, I didnt.

But if you are going to take action, make sure that whatever action you take solves the problem, instead of adding to it.

And you better make sure the people you are saving, want to be saved in the first place.

If they dont, you have lost already, before you ever set foot in their country.

And all the deaths and sacrifices are in vain, because in the end, nothing really changes, except the name of the dictator.

I suggest we all go look in the mirror, and see how we look in the new world order policemans hat we have put on.

I got a really bad feeling we wont like the fit in a few years.

Ed

[cherokee woman]

Rrnut282, you said it all, and very well, i might add.

[rrnut282]

Ed
I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. I applaud your actions at the cafeteria. By the way, did the lady thank you? (I may have given you more ammunition) Did you feel you should have consulted with the family first before you took action? Would talking it over with the guy have accomplished the right thing? I think at the time you would have answered no, and that is why you did what you did. The same general reasons apply to Iraq. Diplomatic attemps were rebuffed, negotiations were at a standstill, inspectors were deported, U.N. regulations were trampled upon. i.e. we talked until we were blue in the face. The only course left was to take action. It boils down to credibility. Unless you back up your words with action, your words become meaningless.
Does everyone agree WWII was justified? If not how many Jews, gypsies, mentally ill, and terminally ill persons have to make a one-way trip to the concentration camps before it becomes imperitive that we do something? The U.S. was not under direct attack when we went to Europe. We were only threatened and we had mutual defense pacts to honor. It was the right thing to do, to stop an evil regime.
One other thing. Maybe it was unintentioned, but in one of your last post sounded as if you were saying we attacked the Iraqi people. We didn't. We took great pains, often passing on targets, to avoid civilian casualties. How many of Saddam's Scuds or Hitler's V2s hit military targets? Very few, they indescriminatley targeted and killed civilians.
Again I want to emphasize credibility. While this is not a perfect analogy, it does help illustrate my point. Why do parents spank their children? Out of hate? Absolutley not. Out of Anger? It happens, but that is not the reason. It is to get their attention so that they will listen to what we say so that they will not hurt themselves or others next time. We (the western culture as a whole) have been roundly criticized for not having the fortitude to back up what be believe and say. That is what Osama and co. were counting upon. They wanted to attack us and wait for us to cower in a corner saying "please don't do that again." We didn't. We replied targeting only those responsible. Hopefully, Osama has his 72 virgins in paradise nagging him 24/7.

Michael

[tree68]

Morality Police. Doesn't that just about completely describe the current administration?

[edblysard]

Thats my whole point, espeefoamer,
It wasnt up to us, the Germans, Canadians or the Briti***o get rid of Saddam, it was up to the people of Iraq to do so.
If they had wanted our help, and asked for it through the United Nations, that would have been different.

We can not allow ourselves the luxuery of assuming the role of morality police for the entire world.
If we decide that we somehow have the right to enforce our version of morals, of right and wrong, and our version of what is and is not "legal" then we have reduced ourselves to the same level as the very dictators and evil leaders we attack.
Thats the same mind set that allowed Hitler to sway the german people into thinking their version of a new world order justified the carnage of WWII.

You remember the "police action" in Vietnam?
Didnt work out too well, did it?

And thats the delima of being the good guys.

We have the military might to create a new world order by force, if we wanted to.

But the very laws we live by, the very foundation of our country, the Constitution, forbids us from doing so.

It allows us to raise and maintain a standing military force for the DEFENSEof the United States only.
It make no provision for that force to be used to enforce our laws anywhere other than inside the United States.

Just because we have to power to do so dosnt mean we have the right to!

America is the place where others come to, not something we can export or force on the rest of the world.

We should be leaders by example.
And if we are not willing to live by, and follow our own laws, why should we expect other to respect us?
If this war is an example of the current American policy, then we are in deep trouble.

Ask the young man, I belive his name is Oliver Trozk?
Ask him if he would like the US to invade Croatia, and set up a new, mini US goverment for them.
Bet he would chose to set up his own goverment, with a system his people are used to, designed around the customs of the people who live there.

Nothing, absolutly nothing, gives us the right to force our viewpoints or form of goverment upon any other people, regardless of how evil we think they are.
Nothing!

We can only defend ourselves from them, when they attack us.

Thats the very concept this country is founded on, the right to chose for yourself the form of goverment to live under.
Thats the bedrock of our way of life, that here, America, is where you come, when you want to live free.
You have to come here to get it, we dont box it up and ship it overseas.
Its not a export comodity, its not for sale, and you cant force it on anyone who dosnt want it in the first place.
By attacking, and then forcing our form of goverment on others, we become the very monsters we despise.
And our laws forbid us from doing that very thing.

And, lest we all forget, this is the only place where we can have this very discussion, on a open, public forum, with out worring about the KGB, or the morality police, religious police, or the military police force kicking in our doors sometime in the night.

Do you really want the US Armed Services being forced into the role of the morality police?
Dosnt that make us as "bad" as the other guys?
Do we want to become the "democratic dictators" of the 21st century?

We have placed ourselves in the horrid position of showing the rest of the world we intend to now lead by force, not by example.
Do what we demand, or we will take over your country.

Not a very comfortable suit to wear, that of the worlds policeman.

And I am still waiting for someone to justify our invading a country, waging war on a people, who havent attacked us.
Seriously.
Ed

[Anonymous]

So what? They were no threat to us. If we are going to take on all the bullies in the world, how about Israel. They are the biggest problem to peace in the Middle East, they absolutely refuse to recognize the Palestinians right to a state of their own. With your thinking, lets invade Israel and put things to rights. Lets not forget for hundreds of years, maps showed that region as Palestine. Israel only came into being in 1948. No Sir, as long as a country is no direct threat to us, we do not have the right to invade it.

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Scottydog

There is nobody who disagrees that Saddam was a very bad man, but was it up to us to get rid of him? I don't think so. The Iraqis themselves should have taken care of that. Bad as he was, he was no threat to the U.S. and the loss of over 500 young Americans, and climbing, to remove him is just not worth the price.

Yes, it was up to us. Who else would have gotten rid of Saddam? If we had waited for the French and the Germans, Saddam and his sons would still be running Iraq,and the death squads would still be in force.

[Anonymous]

Dammit, like Scotty Dog said, that really did hit the nail on the head!

Onec again Ed, you deliverd nothing less then perfect, opening a whole new light on this scinerio.

[edblysard]

Hi Michael, (rrnut)

Up to a point, I agree, bullies work and survive because of the fear and apathy factor.

I myself have spent a evening in the custody of Houston's finest because I took offense to a man slapping his wife in a Lubys cafateria, in front of my wife and children and his own kids.

End result of our discussion? was his face in his plate.

Guess he didnt like wearing his dinner, or having mashed potatoes in his ears.

I felt fully justified in taking action, but there is a big difference in putting a bully in his place, and invading a country.

Because, when you put a individuel in their place, your actions affect only that person, and those directly involved.

When you invade a country, you involve the entire world, and your actions affect everyone.

And, if we use the bully critiera as justification, then most of the middle east countries better shape up, because, by our standards, they are almost all regimes of bullies, with no regard for human rights or civil liberities.

In some places, camels have more rights than their women.

We could invade almost every South American country to boot!

You know, Cuba is only 90 miles away....

And on the cultural note, some of the worlds most beautiful art and craftsmanship, along with some very holy relics, come from what is now Iraq.

They had a written language, and higher mathmatics, while most of the people in Europe were still nomadic tribes wearing untanned fur hides and speaking in grunts.

As to our form of goverment being superior, well, from our viewpoint, yes, to us it is.
To the rest of the world?

Well, if it is so superior, why hasnt every other country adopted it?

Because, whatever system they currently have in place is one they are happy with, or used to.

Most have been in place for centuries, and effecting anything as major as a complete change of a political system to another takes tremendous popular support,
or a war.

The people of the nation we currently call Iraq have lived under military and religious dictatorships since before the time Jesus and his teaching first appeared.

They are used to it, they understand how it works, their entire life, economy and culture is based upon it.

To think we can go over there, and win their hearts and minds with Cokes and McDonalds burgers, DVD players and CDs is silly.

You cant undo that many centuries of cultural and religious heritage by force.

You can, on the other hand, breed resentment and hatred, and there is plenty of that present there already.

Keep in mind we have disrupted their entire way of life, their economy is pretty much bust, and all the upperclass feel threatened, as do the lower class, because their system, the one they knew how to live in and manulipate, is gone, and in their minds, we are trying to replace it with a form of our goverment, which they dont understand.

People resist change, even when it is in their best interest.

Any real change in Iraq will have to come from the people who live there, no outside force will ever effect real change.

And even those do who feel we set them free feel some resentment towards the way we accomplished it.

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

In answer to Mr RRnut282, our government is not superior and never will be as long as we have this stupid electorial college system kept in place. Our system means that the large states like, California, New York, Illinois are the ones who decide who will be in the White House and that people in the likes of Wyoming, the Dakotas need not vote because their votes don't really count. It is time we elected our President by popular vote which would mean that all citizens votes matters as it should be. Do you realize that Al Gore had the majority of all votes cast in the last Presidential election. So why is 'Dubya' in the White House. If I lived in a place like North Dakota, I wouldn't bother to go out in the cold because I know my vote wouldn't matter.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Scottydog

Dammit Ed, your latest post has hit the nail right on the head. I lived in Jordan for two years and I saw the way the Jordanians were about King Hussein. If arabs have a strong figurehead, they are happy. We can not force anyone to accept our form of government nor should we.

Scottydog - I agree. I spent 2.5 years in Iran from 76 - 78. My dad worked for Grumman. Nixon sold Iran the F-14 and my family shipped out, along with half of Long Island. I was on the first official evacuation plane out before the fall of the Shah.

The people as individuals were very friendly. In a mass very different. Religion played a huge role in their lives. The more us Americans/Canadiens/Germans/Brits spend our influence/presence the less friendly they got (as a mass).

[rrnut282]

You're probably right that we will not be able to undo their culture in this single act. But I will ask, how has their culture grown or improved in all those years? It hasn't. They still operate the same way they did back then as they do now. I will conceed that this isn't a justification for an attack.

I will say this, how many of you can stand idly by while one indiviual who is strong and powerful bullies everyone else on the schoolyard? Isn't that what the other kids want, since all they have to do is standup and say so. That is why a government structure like ours is superior. If we don't like it, and enough people vote, change happens. Why would the bully let his victims, i mean people, have a vote, just so he can see how much they love him?

[Anonymous]

Dammit Ed, your latest post has hit the nail right on the head. I lived in Jordan for two years and I saw the way the Jordanians were about King Hussein. If arabs have a strong figurehead, they are happy. We can not force anyone to accept our form of government nor should we.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard



In fact, isnt that one of the reasons our country was formed, because we didnt want a king on the other side of the ocean deciding who leads us, and what laws we lived under?

Ed

Indeed it is, And even I know that.

[edblysard]

Lets see if this adds a little perspective to it...
I have friends who lived in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

We Americans for some reason still seem to want to apply American culture and American values to these people.

Which is a big mistake when trying to understand them.

They have never lived under any real goverment, not in the sense we view a goverment as.

They have, do and will follow a strong leader, no matter who he is.

As long as he projects the image of strength and power, they will follow him.

If he wipes out an entire tribe in the process, so what, victory goes to the strongest.

And they are a tribal people, headed by religious leaders, who for centuries have held absolute power of life and death over their peoples.

This is what they are used to, know and understand.

They have never had a real, centralized goverment that established policy or governed everyone equally.

In fact, as nations, most of the countires in the middle east are new, by our standards.

So what you end up with in Iraq, and all the other countries over there, are a bunch of losely bound tribes and religious groups, collected under the strongest leader, who decides which tribe gets what, and which tribe gets nothing.

Look at Saddams still impressive popular support!

This, from people who, by our standards, were oppressed and terrorized.

I fear we are walking into the same problem we faced in Vietnam, where you cant tell the good guys from the bad guys.

And, at the very first chance, a strong, powerful leader will appear, and proclaim himself leader, and they will follow.

They never have, and most likely never will, live under any form of goverment faintly resembling ours.

They truly have no concept of how we live, vote, work or play, and most likely wouldnt want to know.

To them, we are the backward, unclutured alien people.

They like living in tribes, they have done so for thousands of years, else they would have changed by now.

I am still unclear what empowers us to decide who leads what country, and why?

Isnt that their choice?

In fact, isnt that one of the reasons our country was formed, because we didnt want a king on the other side of the ocean deciding who leads us, and what laws we lived under?

Ed

[Anonymous]

There is nobody who disagrees that Saddam was a very bad man, but was it up to us to get rid of him? I don't think so. The Iraqis themselves should have taken care of that. Bad as he was, he was no threat to the U.S. and the loss of over 500 young Americans, and climbing, to remove him is just not worth the price.

[Anonymous]

ALL I can say is that Ed, I'm VERY impressed with what you've said.

[rrnut282]

I think we can show our support for the soldiers by not treating them as the Vietnam veterans were. By this I mean vilifiying them personally for imagined or accidental incidents just because we don't agree with the reasons given by our government for going there.

What do you call a leader who uses poison gas on his own people? What kind of leader uses the terror of torture and death squads against faimly members to stay in power? (Even the mob doesn't target someone's family, just the person.) How many mass graves do we have to dig up before everyone starts to agree that this wasn't such a bad idea? I supported the liberation of Iraq for those reasons, not oil,or the threat Saddam may have posed with or without weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. working with the U.N. worked for YEARS diplomatically with Iraq, to no avail. When words finally failed, it was time to act. I also believe that had we done nothing, our future as a shaper of the world would slowly come to an end as people around the world would view us as a "toothless tiger". Look at Libya. Kadafi came out and voluntarily turned over his weapons program. What have you heard from N Korea lately? I think G.W. had a good idea, "get in, get it done, and get out." It may not have been popular or right, but enough good has come out of this situation to outweigh the bad.

[edblysard]

Hi Dave,

In WWII, there was no organized Jewish state or goverment, had there been, the entire war would have taken a totally different tack.

Your correct, no Jewish sucide bomber blew up German schoolyards.

Had the jews been organized, and had a state or goverment to guide them, would they have gone to that extreme?

Dont know, but when faced with racial extermination, people and goverments go to extremes.

I am of jewish decent, grandpa was a German Jew who came to America just before WWI.
Dad was first generation American.
Religion has played no major part in our lives, gramps didnt leave germany because of religious issues, he felt the reasons leading up to WWI were wrong, and didnt aggree with the German goverments action.
Because he was a merchant marine, he knew he would be conscripted into the german navy.

Blunty put, he didnt want to fight a war he didnt belive in, on the side he knew would lose.
Instead, he spent WWI in a prisioner of war camp outside of Alvin, Texas.

As far as I am concerned, the Isralies and Palestinies are fighting over a stupid issue, on and over a piece of land that from a comerical point of view is totally useless.
The fact that both religions hold the same city as the holiest of holy should encourage their cooperation, but it never works that way.

And thats exactally why our constitution requires the seperation of church and state, so we dont participate in a religious war as a matter of national policy.

As for the sucide bombers, when one blows up a American schoolyard, or a Metro bus, then lets go kick butt.

But better, should't we be there trying to make peace?

After all, we did help the jews form and hold their country, and its not like the palestinies are asking for a really rich, valuable piece of the world.
About the only place more desolate would be North Dakota, and I am not real sure tey would want it.

In no way is this condoning their actions, but its just about the only weapon they have.

And as long as they feel that they have no choice, and no allies, or a world court that can and will enforce policies designed to provide them a secure state, then they will continue this course.

And this is what happens when goverments and countries are formed around a religious base, you either belong to the major faith, or you dont, and if you dont, your a second class citizen.

We have seen how well that second class thing worked here, yes?

As for comparing the invasion of Iraq to the Nazi blitz or poland, well, Hitler sold it to his people, and tried to sell it to the world as germany only accquiring a buffer state to keep all of the rest of the world out.
No on bought it then, either.

Our goverment is selling this as the US freeing an oppressed people under the rule of a despot.
Isnt there a few other evil dictators we need to remove?
Quite a few come to mind, but oddly, those countires dont sit on a huge oil field.
So, if we went to Iraq to "free" the people, when, exactlly, did they ask us for help?

Which American schoolyard did Saddam have blown up?

And I am quite sure that when all of this is over, BP Petro, Dutch Royal Shell, Exxon Mobil and Phillips will gladly pack up all their bags and exit the country, giving the Iraq goverment all the facilities and production.

Of course, i am still waiting for pigs to get pilot liscenses, too.


Stay Frosty,
Ed

[daveklepper]

There is a huge difference between a Nazi Blitzkrieg (into Poland) and anything a democracy like the USA, Canada, Britain, even Turkey (today) and Israel do, yes and the USA in Korea and Viet Nam, and what *** and their modern counterparts do. The difference is that democracies do try and spare civilian lives as much as possible. The *** tried to kill as many Jews as possible and put as many "Slavs" as possible into slave labor. A huge difference.

With respect to the current situation: Even a Jewish partizan, emerging into forest via sewers to escape certain death in a Ghetto, would not have gone into a German schoolyard to kill children. Saddam Hussein payed lots of money to have Palestinians and other Arabs do just exactly that! That is a proven fact. A big difference. Dave Klepper

[Anonymous]

Ed, you have put down on the previous posts just what the American people should be thinking about in this election year. If Afghanistan had been the main objective, I would have been wholeheartedly behind this President. After September 11, we needed to go after the bastards who initiated the attack and Afghanistan were where they were. This was right and proper but Iraq, this was personal for G.W. and not for the rest of us.
I would go after anyone who attacks this country but I resent losing any of my children in any action that is not in defense of our homeland.
Having said that, I also resent this damned Patriot Act that singles out good Americans of Arab descent for discrimination. The trouble is, I don't know how we can go about it any differently.
What happened to the Jews under Hitler was an abomination, but why are the Palestinians the ones who are paying for it?
I wi***o God we had never got involved with the Middle East in the first place. Maybe I would still have my oldest boy.

[Anonymous]

Ok well Ed covered everyhting I wanted to say, And i won't say a word more, because i'll end up starting an argument.

Whoever said that You cant support the troops unless you support the mission... BULL!! I suport the troops 378%, But i do not support the mission, I havn't from day one, And i'm sorry, but thats the way it is, No one ever sold me on Saddams WMD's, If Hans Blix couldn't have proved any weapons, BUSH or BLAIR sure could not have.


I REALLY appreciate Jim above reconizing the Canadian troops and the efforts they do, We might only be a small country (25.3 million) And for the history books, The last time the popultaion of the USA was 25 million was just before the Civil war broke out. I firmly believe that we are doing what we can.

God bless the troops.

[edblysard]

Pop,
Couldnt agree with you more, an tour of duty is a great way to season a leader.
I note that most of the really good leaders have had military service under their belt.

More surprised that some how, GW hasnt gotten the NSA, or the CIA to produce a bunch of "throw down" WMDs.

And what scares me most is we, the people, seem to be quite content to let this go on, wether out of fear that 9/11 will happen again, (it will, more surprised it took so long the first time) or plain apathy.

Now, I am pretty much a conservative person, but from my perspective, before we go off being the worlds policeman, we ought to try being the worlds peacemakers first.

And, just to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, how much of the 87 billion dollars we are projected to pump into their economy is going to be spent taking care of the widow/widowers and children of the KIA American servicemen and women?

If we can scrape up 87 billion to rebuild Iraq, one would think we could pay our troops just a little better.

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

None on this forum can say they are more supportive of the troops than me, I just happen to be the father of a few of these troops. Alright Saddam is a despot but was he a threat to us? Absolutely not. We had him contained by the no fly zones. Would he have allowed Bin Laden bases in Iraq? Again, absolutely not. Bin Laden's mob are shiites, these were the people Saddam was keeping under his thumb. There is no way he would have allowed armed shiites in his country. This is a bad war that is getting good kids killed because Bush wanted revenge for the attempt on his father's life.
I understand that our form of government puts our armed forces under a civilian President as Commander-inChief, but would it be so bad to demand that anyone running for that position should have in his resume, a tour with a full time part of our military so that they could know what a soldier, sailor or airman's life is really like and think twice before commiting them in harms way. Remember, these boys and girls are volunteers, they weren't dragged in with a draft. That is why so many National Guard units are being activated today to fill the manpower shortage. Not like the Vietnam war that was fought mainly by draftees and joining the National Guard was just another way of draft dodging.