Going to War

[magma]

the captain of the valdez was an american and at the time they wanted to hang an american sea captain for shipping oil. Who was captain of the ship in spain? The way news stories are written is only a reflection of the way people see things at the time they're written. there's no deliberate plot, so to speak, it's just that attitudes about things change so rapidly, that a writer also gets caught up in the flow. no one can write from a standpoint removed from the environment, writers are part of the environment as well. At the same time, the public become immune to the catastophe 'one more oil spill' and the size of the oil spill becomes less important. Spain happened right after the middle east started to heat up, and so the story is 'less important', but 10 years from now, the greenhouse effect will sweep in, we'll see more red tides, the ocean will exand another 10 inches, a glazier will fall into the antartica and they'll write about it as though it were completly disconnected from the events of the previous 10 years.

[sallearmourer]

Before risking one ground troop the US should pick one town and level it with around the clock bombing then give them 24 hrs to turn Saddam over then at the end of the time level Bagdag. If war going to happen instead of risking our troops you bring war to the whole country men women and children. I know that sound crual but that is war. I have seen Vietnamies use kids to blow up american troops I have seen what the Saddam troops did in Kuwaitt the first time. We should have did it right the first time. You are going to see bombers here wheather it male or female. Be prepered for it.

If we go to War wage it totally. It total war there is no colletion damage there is just killing.


Tim Been there done that.

[Gav]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
Before risking one ground troop the US should pick one town and level it with around the clock bombing then give them 24 hrs to turn Saddam over then at the end of the time level Bagdag. If war going to happen instead of risking our troops you bring war to the whole country men women and children. I know that sound crual but that is war. I have seen Vietnamies use kids to blow up american troops I have seen what the Saddam troops did in Kuwaitt the first time. We should have did it right the first time. You are going to see bombers here wheather it male or female. Be prepered for it.

If we go to War wage it totally. It total war there is no colletion damage there is just killing.


Tim Been there done that.

You are an idiot.

[Artisan]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
Before risking one ground troop the US should pick one town and level it with around the clock bombing then give them 24 hrs to turn Saddam over then at the end of the time level Bagdag.

I believe that all the talk and war preparations are saber rattleing (fencing content..eh?) Without it, we have seen that Iraq feels little compusion to comply or assist with inspections. That said, it's not merely a threat of words...it HAS to feel real for the opponent to respond. In fencing, a feint-deceive will not work if it fails to draw a parry. Likewise, "comply or else" will only succeed if there are troops and ships massing on the border. Thus there is no incentive strategy -wise for the US to appear patient.

It appears that our leaders sense that obliterating one town as you suggest isn't the solution - thats pretty much what was done 11 years ago, by completely destroying strategic locations. I think the military recipe for attack will be "flatten Bagdad first, and then continue flattening as needed."

If we go to War wage it totally. It total war there is no colletion damage there is just killing.
....Tim Been there done that.

And unfortunately - you are correct - you can't fight a war just a little bit. It has to be a total commitment.

[rant on]
The issue that muddies the waters for me are the manifold political motives that any US president faces, and erode ones confidence in our leader(s). Dubbayas intent on Iraq seems like shifting the focus from Al Quaida who are the real bad guys that we can't seem to beat, to Saddam who we can. Sure Iraq may be a contributor - but is one of many. Bin Laden got away, and the President's gotta kick someones butt somewhere, or else look as toothless as the UN. Kinda like having a bad day at work and kicking the dog when you get home late because he peed on the floor. The economy's been in the hopper, so he gives us tax breaks so we'll like him. The last giveback proved it doesn't stimulate anything. And a good ol' fashioned war, Ra! RA! will rally the nation. Rosie the rivetter. All the failed Dot-coms will turn to the manufacture of wartime and anti-terror goods. The Struggle of Good over Evil. Cause of the rightious. But that was a different time, and neither Bin Laden or Saddam are quite like Hitler, and the world wasn't knit together by global economies. I'd be more comfortable if Dubbaya didn't always look like a spotlighted deer, and struggle so with his english. Gives the impression we're being led by a marionette, with a huge and powerful comittee of puppeteers at the strings - each with their own vested interests. "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
[rant off]

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Gav
You are an idiot.

Whether you agree or disagree does not here matter; don't start with simplistic, direct insults to the person. If you disagree, fine: Say so, and back yourself up. But don't ANYBODY start with insults, or we'll get absolutely nowhere.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Artisan
I believe that all the talk and war preparations are saber rattleing (fencing content..eh?) Without it, we have seen that Iraq feels little compusion to comply or assist with inspections. That said, it's not merely a threat of words...it HAS to feel real for the opponent to respond. In fencing, a feint-deceive will not work if it fails to draw a parry. Likewise, "comply or else" will only succeed if there are troops and ships massing on the border. Thus there is no incentive strategy -wise for the US to appear patient.

It appears that our leaders sense that obliterating one town as you suggest isn't the solution - thats pretty much what was done 11 years ago, by completely destroying strategic locations. I think the military recipe for attack will be "flatten Bagdad first, and then continue flattening as needed."



And unfortunately - you are correct - you can't fight a war just a little bit. It has to be a total commitment.

[rant on]
The issue that muddies the waters for me are the manifold political motives that any US president faces, and erode ones confidence in our leader(s). Dubbayas intent on Iraq seems like shifting the focus from Al Quaida who are the real bad guys that we can't seem to beat, to Saddam who we can. Sure Iraq may be a contributor - but is one of many. Bin Laden got away, and the President's gotta kick someones butt somewhere, or else look as toothless as the UN. Kinda like having a bad day at work and kicking the dog when you get home late because he peed on the floor. The economy's been in the hopper, so he gives us tax breaks so we'll like him. The last giveback proved it doesn't stimulate anything. And a good ol' fashioned war, Ra! RA! will rally the nation. Rosie the rivetter. All the failed Dot-coms will turn to the manufacture of wartime and anti-terror goods. The Struggle of Good over Evil. Cause of the rightious. But that was a different time, and neither Bin Laden or Saddam are quite like Hitler, and the world wasn't knit together by global economies. I'd be more comfortable if Dubbaya didn't always look like a spotlighted deer, and struggle so with his english. Gives the impression we're being led by a marionette, with a huge and powerful comittee of puppeteers at the strings - each with their own vested interests. "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
[rant off]

Saber rattling? Hell no. We're GOING.

Also - you would judge a president on his lack of eloquence? Some of the biggest scumbags are pretty smooth talkers; you can be a wonderful leader even with an awful stststutter.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Artisan

Dubbayas intent on Iraq seems like shifting the focus from Al Quaida who are the real bad guys that we can't seem to beat, to Saddam who we can.

Oh, we can beat 'em when we can find 'em, we just can't find 'em...

But let's not fool ourselves that Saddam isn't a "real bad guy". He's just a slightly less fanatical one...a characteristic offset by his control of a state with large financial and other resources. That, and that WOMD thing.

Sure Iraq may be a contributor - but is one of many.

Most of which have not tried to develop nukes, used chemical agents, or invaded neighbors recently. Prioritization!

The economy's been in the hopper, so he gives us tax breaks so we'll like him.

I'd be willing to bet that in his heart of hearts he doesn't give a rats posterior about the fiscal stimulus angle, any more than he did during the last round of tax cuts. He believes as a matter of philosophy that the citizenry should be taxed less, come boom or come bust. That, IMO, is why the first round of cuts were so amazingly well-timed economically speaking: they weren't trying to time a stimulus to the business cycle. When Administrations do that, they almost invariably bring their program out at precisely the wrong moment----tax cuts or government spending taking effect just as the recovery gets under way, causing inflation, or tax increases/spending cuts ( ha! ) hitting the economy just as it cools and worsening the trough that follows...

The last giveback proved it doesn't stimulate anything.

It did? How do we know the recession wouldn't have been a depression without them?

Most economists will say that they DID have a stimulative effect...and so will these...it's just that, like Alan Greenspan says, lightning isn't going to strike twice, and the timing this time is rather more likely than not to go awry and pump up price inflation while exacerbating the deficit...

I'd be more comfortable if Dubbaya didn't always look like a spotlighted deer, and struggle so with his english. Gives the impression we're being led by a marionette, with a huge and powerful comittee of puppeteers at the strings - each with their own vested interests. "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

Well...yeah.

But a President can be worse things than inarticulate in front of crowds. Heaven knows we have seen some of them in men much more glib than he.

[magma]

I can't believe you made fun of someone's stutter. Name calling, making fun of, that is the beginning of war, that's what starts fights, battles, disputes, separation of people into groups that form alliances and eventually form armies etc.

well, that aside, it looks as though our country will be getting involved in another military action in the middle east, but bigger than desert storm. the way of life is so different from here, i still don't see any connection between saddam and bin laden and the world trade center, but now that i've written the three things together on the same paper, i see it. i wish the whole thing could be avoided, why can't the middle eastern countries become like one big country - the united arab states, all of them? and have elected officials with senators and representatives, and so forth. it is such a simple way of life, much easier than having military leaders. europe and the united states must be the only places left where civilians still take the lead in government. get ready for the veteran when he and she comes home, there's going to be a need to hire them into civilian occupations, as well as the need for rest/6 months at the least/ followed by re-training into something civilian, and then the workplace. Let's hope they can adjust.

[sallearmourer]

Gav I forgive you because you have problem never seen combat. I have in several Places around the world. I just believe in total war. My family has fought under this country flag since the Revolt againist the crown. My oldest son is attening WEST Point Military ACD now I have two nephews on the way to Desert. If we going to War it's should be total. War is not nice you can't pick and chosen your target. We lost good troops in Somleia because of our President and his staff.


Tim

A Ret Larrp and Ranger

[magma]

my family also did the revolutionary war thing, but in reading it now, believe it or not, i have some reservations about the whole thing, the colonists shouldn't have been there in the first place, but since they were, well, let's just say this: taxation without representation!!! I feel the same way about it today, I have taxes to render out, and it gets more difficult each year. what would have happened if the colonists didn't revolt? The possibility that other europeans would have settled in, eventually they would have broken away from the euopean continent. i never saw actual combat, however, i did live through a few military coups. I was very close to being shot several times, it was an interesting expereince [hindsight], I remember having to jog home with some friends at twilight just to beat a curfew. We almost got run over by an army jeep, but we kept on jogging. Then a small group of 'rebels' threw molotov cocktails down a road during the mid-afternoon, and everyone on the block was sort of locked into place for a while, but believe it or not again, i was sorta on their side, so i didn't get scared or anything.

[SteveMcDonough1]

The way I see it:

I'm not interested in politics. I'm not actually interested in Iraq. Yeah, Hussein's been a bit of an arsehole, but my point is that I don't particularly want to be called up for national service because Bush feels like a war, and has Tony Blair panting to him like a [-expletive-] lapdog.

I don't want war. I'm not "Anti-U.S.A", but maybe Bush's war on terrorism is a little two-faced- Bombing the tits off of CIVILIANS - (being Iraqi their crime)... Is that not terrorism itself under the disguise of sanctioned war?

sod it.. I'm going to have me a magic ciggy and stop being so negative.. Of course it's all o.k. to attack iraq because they've probably got some kind of weaponary, but they've hidden it really well... and this whole linch mob is led by a cocaine-sniffing retarded crook, and the "civillians" are all suicide bombers all just bristling at the chance to hijack a plane...


Rant over... I apologise.

My problem is this.. I start typing, meaning to just put a sentence or two, and end up ranting on! lol If I've upset anyone with my opinions, let me know and I'll edit them out. The only good opinion is someone elses' *right* one.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Saber rattling? Hell no. We're GOING.

Also - you would judge a president on his lack of eloquence? Some of the biggest scumbags are pretty smooth talkers; you can be a wonderful leader even with an awful stststutter.

there is a BIG difference between a stutter and a lack of knowledge. do you know how embarrassing it is to have a president who can't pronounce a seven letter word???? Message to dubbya: its NUCLEAR, not nucular.

A few quotes:

"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning"
--Florence, SC, Jan. 11, 2000

"Actually, I -- this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are talking about me."
--Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000

"I don't remember debates. I don't think we spent a lot of time debating it. Maybe we did, but I don't remember."
--On discussing the Vietnam War as an undergraduate at Yale, in the Washington Post, July 27, 1999

"I did denounce it. I de-I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry."
--Referring to his Bob Jones University visit and the subsequent criticism, Virginia, February 25, 2000

"My [tax cut] plan is realistic because it avoids meaningless 15-year projections."
--George W. Bush goes to extraordinary lengths to defend his tax cut plan. (Quote is from a Bush speech in Iowa, 12/1/99)

"Down in Washington they're playing with Social Security like it's some kind of government program!"
-NBC Nightly News

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."
--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect

It's statements like the above, which range from idiotic to downright scary, that illustrate just how ludicrous it is for such a man to hold this much power.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
If we going to War it's should be total. War is not nice you can't pick and chosen your target.

Sounds like a pretty damn good argument against the war to me.....

A few other things which have been bothering me:

The supposed link between Iraq and Al Quaeda has not been shown to exist, and in fact probably doesn't exist. After all, its not very often that religious fanatics and vehemently secular despots work together. In fact, in his latest tape, Bin Laden called Sadaam an infidel.

"The burden of proof is not on the inspectors, but rather on Iraq to prove that they don't have WoMD." How exactly does one do that??? burden of proof is LOGICALLY on the weapons inspectors. To shift that burden to Iraq simply creates an impossible burden, which was, of course, the point.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
there is a BIG difference between a stutter and a lack of knowledge. do you know how embarrassing it is to have a president who can't pronounce a seven letter word???? Message to dubbya: its NUCLEAR, not nucular.

-m

You were no doubt embarrassed by Carter as well, then, as he pronounces it the same way. Likewise a lot of lesser mortals, like Bob Woodward, who are not immediately tarred as idiots therefore.

It's a regionalism or something of the sort, not a sign of stupidity or "lack of knowledge".

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
You were no doubt embarrassed by Carter as well, then, as he pronounces it the same way. Likewise a lot of lesser mortals, like Bob Woodward, who are not immediately tarred as idiots therefore.

It's a regionalism or something of the sort, not a sign of stupidity or "lack of knowledge".

Actually, I DO think that it was very embarrassing for this country that Carter mispronounced Nuclear.

How about going against decades of doctrine and reclassifying nuclear arms to lower the bar for their use?? Is that idiocy, or should I just be scared at what a war mongor he is??

How about suspending Habeus Corpis? you can feel free to point out that Lincoln did it too. the answer is that it was wrong when Lincoln did it, and it is wrong now.

-m

[Inquartata]

And yet, Carter is generally accorded to be the most cerebral and intelligent President in many decades. Hmm...could a mere lack of glib facility in public speechmaking possibly not have any correlation to smarts? It sure seems to be a necessary if not sufficient quality for demagogues, though.

Nor am I terribly concerned with "going against decades of doctrine". It is, at the least, not doctrinaire...

I should point out, too, that what you perceive as "lowering the bar" may be more apparent than real. A bluff, in short---and if Saddam and others are to believe a bluff, one cannot at the same time whisper behind your hand to your friends that "I don't really mean it".

The domestic issues are more troubling to me, though. "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground", and conditions such as those in which we live today provide opportunities for that trend to accelereate.

[Catlady]

Apostrophe to Man
(on reflecting that the world is ready to go to war again)

Detestable race, continue to expunge yourself, die out.
Breed faster, crowd, encroach, sing hymns, build bombing planes;
Make speeches, unveil statues, issue bonds, parade;
Convert again into explosives the bewildered ammonia and distracted cellulose;
Convert again into putresecent matter drawing flies
The hopeful bodies of the young, exhort,
Pray, pull long faces, be earnest, be all but overcome, be photographed;
Confer, perfect your formulae, commercialize
Bacteria harmful to human tissue,
Put death on the market;
Breed, crowd, encroach, expand, expunge yourself, die out,
Homo called sapiens.
-- Edna St. Vincent Millay

Frankly, I think we're determined we'll have a war, so we'll have a war. When we went through this with George I, I was more actively opposed. Now I find myself disgusted with both sides--all sides, you'd think by now we'd have figured out how to solve our problems more effectively--and find myself echoing the sentiments expressed in Ms. Millay's poem.

And I do want to get one more thing off my chest, about Swordman's sig. What you say is doubtless true, but without all of those of us who you seem to be denigrating, there wouldn't anything for the soldier to defend, or at least no anything worth defending.

I know there's a war between the intellectuals and the military, and I think it's time for both sides to bury the hatchet--and not in each others heads.

[Swordsman]

My signature is a quote from Father E. O'Brien, USMC. It should not be denegrating to anyone; it merely reinforces that A) a military is required if we are to have the freedoms that we so cherish, and B) they're frequently not only unappreciated, but denounced and attacked outright. The military should not have to defend itself against its own fellow citizens.


As for the rest of the posts since my last: I think I have made my own points sufficiently clear already (and if not, please do ask for clarification), even if you don't agree with them. Re-stating my points will not change anything, and so I will simply sit here and disagree with you.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
My signature is a quote from Father E. O'Brien, USMC. It should not be denegrating to anyone; it merely reinforces that A) a military is required if we are to have the freedoms that we so cherish, and B) they're frequently not only unappreciated, but denounced and attacked outright. The military should not have to defend itself against its own fellow citizens.

I agree with point B. Antiwar is not antimilitary, at least in my case. Mind you, I feel our military could stand to be a little smaller, but that has nothing to do with the men and women on the ground. I may have a problem with the way our military is being used, but I have NO problem with, and in fact a great deal of respect for, the rank and file soldiers of our military. As for point A, well, pragmatically speaking, a military is necessary, but civil liberties seem to be doing okay in most of Europe, and they have significantly smaller militaries than the US.

Trivia Question: Everybody knows (or could guess) that the Uniteds States Air Force is the largest airforce in the world. What is the second largest air force in the world??

Give me a few guesses, and if nobody gets it, I'll answer.

As for the rest of the posts since my last: I think I have made my own points sufficiently clear already (and if not, please do ask for clarification), even if you don't agree with them. Re-stating my points will not change anything, and so I will simply sit here and disagree with you.

the one thing I WOULD like you, and others on this board who think the US is reacting correctly, to respond directly to is the point that the placement of burden of proof on Iraq instead of the weapons inspectors is illogical and impossible to meet. How is it that this point hasn't been brought up more often? every time I hear somebody speaking against the war, they fail to raise the issue of impossible burden. To me, this is a HUGE issue, as it shows that our position is a mere pretext, and that the reasoning we claim to have isn't actually there.

-m