San Diego, CA Your Thoughts On Desert Storm II: VOTE

Well i thought i would take the time to discuss the upcoming war,


here is my opinion:
I feel we are doing the right thing by putting saddam out of power, if we do not act NOW, what is in store for the future, if we let him keep being sneaky, then what can happen in 5, 10, 1 year without him out of power,
i am pro on war, even if it means sacrifice. with or without the council's consent. if you stand by us, you do, if you dont, move out of the way and mind your own business,
this is the way it goes
if we go to war, end it quick, take sadamm out, then we are ok

if it proceeds into a long war, other countries will get involved and it will spark up WWIII, yes it will because if france, germany, russia are against us, they will do whatever it takes to defend the enemy, even if it means being against us, and you might get nosy countries such as n. korea who will try to bully us around, my opinion, fight 2 war's at once to ensure our safety



i vote for war

 

Hmm...can't....resist.....temp....tation....too...strong.....

Ok, here goes. I must state emphatically that I am AGAINST war. It leaves too many fatherless children and sonless families in the world. It speaks to the darker recesses of our natures, and caters to the lowest levels of international diplomacy. Even as a last resort, it must still be avoided as much as is possible.
That being said, I must agree that a full-scale operation must be undertaken. It must visit upon the opponents a maelstrom of authority and an as-of-one-mind determination to seek victory by the most expeditious of means. Bring our nation's sons and daughters home quickly, safely, and above all, victorious. A long and drawn-out operation will serve noone, as this action will also serve to liberate many oppressed segments of the Iraqi population as well.

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change.
That is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." George Patton.

As for the other UN nations that may oppose our actions, they are in direct violation of UN resolutions that they unanimously agreed to and signed. Namely Resolution 1441. Only the US and it's Allies seem to be possessed of the intestinal fortitude to actually back-up what much of the free world had laid down as the terms necessary for Iraq to avoid another confrontation. Iraq has repeatedly ignored and even circumvented these terms for the last twelve years, and now it will be held accountable. Sometimes, you just have to whup somebody's a$$ 'cause it's the right thing to do.

I find it almost humorous to think of the dissenting vote nations warring against us. It is a near impossibility. First, they lack the cojones to spank even Saddam. Second, they have taken their stand mainly because of how aware they are of how unstoppable the US is on the field of battle. Let's not forget that they are still our allies, as distasteful as it may seem, and war with them is not a logical scenario for anyone.


In conclusion, I have to support an offensive action. Perhaps the world is undergoing a wake-up call in that the UN will finally be shown to be the ineffectual gangrenous appendage that ultimately leads to the allownce of atrocities the world over, yet essentially hamstrings anyone from dealing out a swift justice to the instigators. Need anyone be reminded of the horrors committed in Rwanda, Zaire, Somalia, the former Czech Republics, Asia etc. all under the auspices of UN justice? Had this Barney Fife of world police not been sitting on it's hands in these places with it's bullet in a shirt pocket, perhaps the atrocities could have been stopped by a stronger nation willing to help.

 

The last few speeches on the subject that President Bush has made I couldnt have agreed with more. This should have been done a long time ago. Saddam and his ilk are the ultimate mobster murderers. Its a dirty job and unpleasant but it must be done. To not act now is risking terrible consequences later. To remove these monsters from power is a blow for civilization and a message to future tyrants. His ambitions for nuclear weapons must be stopped. Lets hope he hasnt been able to develop any yet. If anyone is still not sure, try to watch "Saddams Bomb Maker" it was shown on the History Channel. We must not even risk a small chance of a Nuclear 911 in our country. I wish swift and
safe victory to everyone who serves. I also hope that the Iraqi people will truly see this as liberation and seize thier chance at
freedom. There are 70,000 kurds in northern Iraq that will be fighting with us, there are many in Iraq that want Saddam removed.
I am very proud of our military. They are true heroes.

 

Well I am against any form of "aggressive negotiations." But we are all helpless to do anything about it really... this war will happen irregardless of how we feel about it. Even though I am opposed to all war, I still believe we should support our country no matter what. We should always appear as a United front. Being here in San Diego I know lots of men who have had to leave their families to go float around in the gulf for months. My friend Linda across the street is left with two very small children and has been told her husband will not be home this year at all. We have SDSWS members out there floating in the gulf even... I worry about them being able to come back to us. There are so many TFN/Fanforce members who have had to leave the boards this year as they were reservists and have been called up. War is always horrible... old men sit around and decide to have a war, and the young men are sent off to fight it. *sigh* We will probably be at war by the end of the day, or at least by Friday, and there is nothing we can do about it but sit back and watch it unfold on CNN.

 

Since we're being serious here:

MJF echoes a sentiment I hear from many people. We don't want a war but we are powerless to stop it. We feel helpless as decisions are being made on information we have never seen and our government refuses to show us. I have personally said that all I want our elected officials to do is show me their data on the reasons for going to war and I will be content. I have not seen or heard a single thing to convince me.

I don't disagree that Saddam is a danger but I just don't see a connection between those that attacked us on 9/11 and Iraq. We've already seen with Vietnam that going to war without the support of the people is a dangerous thing. And going to war without the support of our allies is even more dangerous. We are still a global community and our current administration is doing everything it can to destroy our relations with other nations. When the war is over how eager is the rest of the world going to be to open their arms to American exports and American tourists?

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you don't respect their opinion or experience.

 

Saddam funds terrorists. Terrorist families receive large monetary rewards from Saddam. In addition, Saddam is a terrorist himself. He has tortured and murdered his own people. We knew about him testing chemical weapons on his own people. Just recently however, there has a been a story about him using a plastic shredder on people and forced their families and friends to watch.

Furthermore, we have given peace plenty of chances. 12 years of sanctions and 17 UN resolutions later, Saddam has still not complied. He has had plenty of chances to stop war. The ball was in his court and he dropped it.

Sometimes war is absolutely necessary. Hitler could not have been stopped without violent action against him. The policy of appeasement was a colossal failure prior to WWII. Sometimes you have a chance to stop things before they become worse. The allies failed to take that opportunity to stop Hitler until the damage was already done. I want to know, when is it too late? Is it too late when Saddam funds another terrorist attack on U.S. Soil?

 

The only thing that evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

 

ok, since i am a veteran, and call NYC my home, i must say...get in there and kick his ass! This is somehitng that sholld have been done back whe i was in highschool.

I dont want people todie, and i doubt that this would turn into another vietnam.

I agree with armand, and linda, lets get in there do it fast and swift, and bring our boys home, and celebrate their returning!

-----
Revenge be swift and Sweet!

 

Linda and Donna are the only people who have said anything intelligent in this thread.

Is Saddam a jerkwad that needs to be gotten rid of? Of course. He's a scumbag. He needs to go. But what right do we have to do anything about this? He runs a country. He has the right to defend his country.

There is not a single shred of proof, THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, that Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9-11. And that's because he has nothing to do with 9-11. Both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden have been quoted as saying that they hate each other and wishes the other was dead. There is no proof, THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, that Saddam and Osama have become good friends.

Part of Bush's demands to Saddam Hussein was that he has to disarm within a certain amount of time. Let's say you're the leader of a country, dictator or no, and you're asked by the President of another country to stop defending yourself. What is your answer going to be?

The ONLY reason that we're doing anything in Iraq is for the oil. That's it. If you think otherwise, then you are falling for the lies the government is telling you hook line and sinker. As Public Enemy once said, "Don't believe the hype".

Let's look at the facts, shall we? Dick Cheney, the vice president, has been a CEO and Chairmain of the Board for an oil company for many many many years. He 'stepped down' in order to accept the vice presidency so that there is no 'conflict of interest'. Well, do you think he doesn't still own a piece of that pie? Of course he does. If Saddam is ousted as part of this campaign, then that frees up all the oil fields that Saddam controls. These oil fields will be kindly given to the new government of Iraq that we're going to put into place. Of course, part of the deal is that his company will get this oil at a discounted rate.

Another thing is that once we've "liberated" Iraq, the country will have to be rebuilt. Buildings will be destroyed, infrastructure will collapse, lots of crap is going to happen. Well, the corporations that win those contracts stand to make a lot of money. And what corporations will win those bids? Friends of Bush and Cheney. Probably those that donated lots and lots of money to his campaign.

This is just the tip of the conspiracy that is in front of the noses of the American people. But we're ignoring all that because we think it's okay to just invade some guy's contry in order to kill him. This is an amazing precedent that we will set if we get away with this. You have no idea.

Now, let's talk about our troops that are going to be taking part in this conflict. A lot of them are going to die. This is not going to be like Desert Storm where we just had to push the opposition back to the country from whence they came. We're talking about going into Baghdad and storming Saddam's palace. This is no easy task. This is urban warfare. Similar to the warfare experience by our troops in Mogadishu. It's not pretty. It's rough and tumble combat. Attrition levels will be high. Don't think this is going to be some kinda cakewalk for our troops. It's going to be a very bloody battlefield and it sickens me that we're walking into this so blindly and so forthrightly.

This is war. War is hell. We shouldn't be in favor of this. We should be disgusted by this. We should be telling our leaders that they need to show proof before they do something like this and that Congress, as is required by the Constitution of the United States, must DECLARE WAR before we do this.

But they won't do any of this. The war is going to happen no matter what anybody says. Because America is currently under the reigns of a dictatorship ourselves. We just don't know it yet.

I wish our troops the best of luck. They're going to need it.

 

Brian where were you when we needed you on the Senate Floor



I agree with you and Linda and Donna. There is no need for us to attack. How would we like it if France decided that Bush needed to go and just decided that they were going to unilaterally attack. We would defend ourselves.

Say Chirac demanded that Bush leave the country in 48 hours. Bush would laugh and we'd gear up for attack.

I just can't understand why people are buying this stuff about us being the only country to stand up and do something about this "dictator" in Iraq. If the Iraqi people want to be liberated (like we did), let them do it with teh help of the UN. We can send troops as part of that effort.

But to just decide that we don't like the guy and send our men and women to make him leave is the most presumptious act of a president ever.

There is no proof that Saddam is a threat to us.

I'll say it again.

There is no proof that Saddam is a threat to us.

We are fortunate to be the most powerful country in the world right now and because of that fortune we should be a leader. The best leaders lead by example. Is the example you really want to send is, "Hey, if you don't like what is going on somewhere, just be a bully and send your troops in to make it how you want it." This is a dangerous precident the president is setting.

 

I agree with everything you said except this:

How would we like it if France decided that Bush needed to go and just decided that they were going to unilaterally attack. We would defend ourselves.

France is a bad example because they're a bunch of wimps.

EDIT: Damn the Google(tm) trick doesn't work anymore.

 

France is a bad example because they're a bunch of wimps.

LMAO!!!!! But a good point nonetheless.

 

Again I ask the question, when is it too late?

 

The question should be, "When did he finance a first one?"

If he wants to start one and attack us, then we have a reason to attack him.

Now, all we have is a new, global form of Mcarthyism. He is not a threat to us.

 

I have just had an epiphany.

You are all correct in saying that Saddam is of no threat to us. We have no right to punish him because what he does has no direct bearing on our lives.

As a matter of fact, let's not place that dirtbag who kidnapped that Smart girl on trial, either. What do I care about some kid from all the way in Utah? Serves her right for being in her bedroom like that and not defending herself.
I say let any criminal who hasn't done anything to any of us directly go free and not face any punishment for his crimes. If they broke a codified law, established by government and society, who cares? They haven't hurt any of us in particular. I firmly stand by the notion of letting those who are weaker fend for themselves. Screw 'em, right?
Just like we should have stayed out of Europe during WWII. Germany never invaded us. And who cares about a few million lesser humans like Slavs, Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others too insignificant to mention.

I agree, we should stay home and count our money. Let's not buy into all that crap on the History channel about all the so-called tyrants and dictators who have sprouted up throughout history. Their people finally would have been free when the despot died of old age.

I don't buy into all this proof released by UN inspectors of being harassed, misled, lied to, detained, and all the footage of these obvious movie prop weapons on trucks that are being led to supposed destruction. And who gives a crap about these UN phonies anyway? Their rules are meant to be broken, which leads me right back to that "If it doesn't hurt me, live and let live".

It has been proven that pre-emptive strikes are of little effect against nations like those in question here. I'm sure that all of you social issue experts remember (if you're old enough) a little wake-up call delivered unto a loudmouthed bully named Muamar Ghaddaffi by President Ronald Reagan. Colonel ghaddaffi had been harrassing and taunting, funding attacks on sovereign states etc., and the US bombed hell outta their country; Libya. It obviously didn't work, because we keep hearing about this guy all the time, every night, and how Libya is such a powerhouse and all. Will we ever learn? We should have allowed the UN to handle the operation peacefully, because then we could be sending more blue-helmeted, empty-weaponed, American service personnel to Libya every year to get rocks thrown at them and Molotov cocktailed. We are depriving our young service personnel of the chance to sunbathe on Libyan beaches.

Let's let Saddam have his fun. I'm not even the least bit concerned why those seventeen Iraqi soldiers surrendered to US forces today. I'm sure they were coerced and had every intention of fighting to the death for a system that they encourage and defend loyally. And I, personally, have a picture of a Khurdish family lying gassed to death on the ground, mother clutching babies, choked breaths the last they ever took, as a wallpaper on my desktop. It reminds me of the trick photography and propaganda used by so-called peace-loving nations to defame and harass an innocent humanitarian like Saddam.

I say NIMBY; Not In My Back Yard. I'll support military action when the conflict reaches my shores and screw anyone else's human rights. As a matter of fact, I don't know any of those poor kids in Kentucky, either. I want my pegwarmers back.

 

"I just can't understand why people are buying this stuff about us being the only country to stand up and do something about this "dictator" in Iraq. If the Iraqi people want to be liberated (like we did), let them do it with teh help of the UN. We can send troops as part of that effort."

For those history-challenged individuals, I will offer a bit of insight into our rebellion to gain independence.
1. We were a colony, risng against a nation whose troops had to be supplied, for the most part, from the mother country. The British were foreign troops essentially.
2. "WE" didn't do it alone, and there were plenty of people against it who would have allowed British rule to continue (do you drink coffee or tea?). Rebel ambassadors were working feverishly overseas to win approval and support from many different nations. I'm sure if they were allowed to, we would see some Iraqis asking for help on our own floors of government.
3. Britain was not just fighting it's American colonies at the time. Remember that the sun never set on the British Empire until recently. It had been involved in many different conflicts over the globe. This is another reason why France ultimately involved itself near the end. It was also seeking to score a victory over it's long-time adversary. These other widespread conflicts enabled Rebels to fight against a fraction-of-it's-true-size British force. Without these needed distractions, the Colonies wouldn't have stood a chance. Perhaps, using your feeble argument, our little involvement in their nation would allow those freedom-seekers in Iraq the needed distraction to rise against their oppressors? UN troops have never been an effective force in changing a nation's policies within effective and expedient parameters. They are hobbled by a leadership consisting of too many chiefs. UN troops are effective at directing traffic and cleaning always-empty-never-fired weapons.

A correllation between the fight for US independence from Great Britain, and the Iraqi people's issues with their government is completely innaccurate.

 

A correllation between the fight for US independence from Great Britain, and the Iraqi people's issues with their government is completely innaccurate

SO is your correllation between what we are doing in Iraq and prosecuting the dude for kidnapping Elizabeth Smart. Apples and Oranges, dude.

I'll try to clear up what I meant. No other country came here and kicked the british out. We decided that there had to be a better way, fought them, and asked for help. We are going in with out being asked for help at all by the Iraqi people.

There is an thought that people need to be allowed to decide their own form of government. We decided what government we wanted. Iraq is the same. We can't decide
for them. To do so would overstep our bounds.

 

yes, but these people CAN'T fight for themselves, they don't know how! That is why, unfortunately the Earth Police force(the US Armed forces) must go in and remove the person that is "holding back the advancement of the iraqi people". These people cant watch tv, or haev nice things, and they shoudl be richer than us, 'cause they are sitting ontop of a quadrillon tons of oil! So lets go in and remove peacefully or by force the man responsible for causing women not to be able to be women, and let the men think for themselves.

I hope my military buddies who went in with me that i know that are over there, kick ass and no take names! Of couse i figure the army will surrender before we get a chance to get nasty. Oh, this will in now way be another mogadishu (sp*). Those people can perform urban warfare rather nicley and iraq cannot!

 

Here's my $.02:

First here's where I'm coming from...I believe that Saddam is a threat, no two ways about it. I don't doubt that given the capabilites to attack the US and US citizens, he would do so in an instant. Second, I know people currently in the military (we all know Luis, aka. Darth Blaze who has been in the Persian Gulf for months) as well as many friends in various branches of ROTC. The last thing I want to see is them forfeiting their lives for a futile and pointless cause.

I think that this "operation" must be thought through as completely as possible. The proper authorities must take the highest precautions to ensure that American casualties are kept as close to zero as possible. Also, the American people must be made aware of exactly what Saddam is capable of at the present time. I haven't seen anything so far that I can safely call credible evidence. If these two conditions are satisfied, then I agree that this war should continue. If every possible situation has not been analyzed and presented to the American people, then this war should not commence. It just seems to me like our government is rushing into this a little too quickly.

 

Who died and made us Earth's police force?

Isn't that what the UN is for?

 

all i gotta say to brian, is "word". i can't add anything you didn't say already brotha.

ps. i think i need to get those george sacul figs sometime, lol, i guess i should hit up the next meeting, as soon as my poison aok goes away.

 

Bottom line for those that dont get it. There are many reasons to remove Saddam but this is the one that counts.
First off no one is FOR war. But its time to connect the dots here folks. Do you want to wait until New York or Los Angeles or Isreal or London is a SMOKING NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE with millions dead or dying of radiation for years? Im sorry to be blunt. That is what is at stake. Saddam could assist Al Queada! Do you trust Saddam not to? 911 demonstrated how evil these people are. Do you think that they wouldnt do it? It is THAT simple. If you dont agree than your just going to have to understand that is what the rest of us think is at stake and thats why this is happening, It is an issue of Self Defense before it is too late.

Bush speech to the nation...........
http://tinyurl.com/7t34

 

The hypocrisy practiced by certain members of this board would have me choking from laughter, if it wasn't so tragic in displaying their insipience.

How many here clung to the edge of their seats when a foreign army descended upon a tyrant possessed of an army that had as yet done nothing wrong to anyone and waged a carnage of such epic proportion that you can't wait for Episode III? The good guys supposedly knew this dude was evil and was capable of doing catastrophic badness to the universe. Where was their proof? They mobilized without consulting an ineffectual congress of worlds. Yet I'll wager every one of you cheered them then. The concept is not new to you. It's another war waged in the sand, and you loved it then.

You, all of you who profess to follow the ideals of these jedi, you. You, who fantasize about being those who would slice an individual in two with impunity. You, who fill your usernames or signatures with epithets and declarations of superiority. You, who play at the violent nature's of human nature and yet point your lilly-white fingers at those who would step forward and uphold the law as laid down by a unanimous decision of your vaunted UN. You, who profess peace yet lionize those who pretend to wage a just war on screen. You, who can throw your boundless hypocrisies as far as your burning selective service cards. You disgust me.

A battle-tried veteran speaks nothing of his triumphs or victories. He knows he did what he thought was right. He won't wear his uniform and medals in public, as it shows a side of human nature that is usually reprehensible.
However, you children of peace, those who have never fought for anything except maybe the first Playstation IIs at Best Buy, can don the dress of a fictional warrior and doddle about in public waving your look-at-me sticks around and play at battle. I find the act of PRETENDING to be violent yet preaching peace to be absurd. You know nothing of living in an environment of repression and control. You are at this moment using a device that is only a myth among most people's of the world. And you would deny them that.

Speak not to me of peace, as a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar and insisting on his allergy to flour, it falls on deaf ears. You are all stargazers who curse the darkness.

Proof? How much proof is needed? Open your eyes.

 

yea, well we all saw how the un is divided, and nato is being a pain in the ass...

i'm not hating anyone here and i love discussing things...so no hard feelings. I'm NOT saying anyones opinion is wrong. Its just i havnt really voiced my opinion to anyone yet, and this is the first time. So my thoughts may be alittle out, but i belive in them for some weird reason...

perhaps the dark side clouds the UN's mind!

 

Here's my opinion of the things going on:

I am not for any war, but if we must go to war, we should make it swift and fast. No "leader" of a country should be allowed to tread their people the way that Saddam does. That alone is worth going to war and putting him out of power. We should use any methods necessary to get it over with quickly. My father is in the Marines, and luckily he has not been deployed...yet. This "war" should not be going on now, but we should have finished the fight 12 years ago.