Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/7/2003 2:28:24 PM EST
The main thing to me is that we as Conservatives be true to our principles. Well, this war in Iraq seems to contradict many of them. For instance: 1. Iraq has never INITIATED violence toward the USA. Even the attempt to kill Dubyas daddy was during a time of war. A war WE inserted ourselves into. Where WE first fired on Iraq. 2. WOMD's. Saddam's got them. We've got them. Would that justify Putin coming here and ousting our President??? For YEARS Conservative said that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was a deterrent against the godless Commies. Now MAD is suddenly NOT a deterrent against Saddam (Saddam being MUCH less nuclear capable)??? Or call it UNILATERAL assured destruction. Saddam stings us, we obliterate him? Apparently MAD doesn't work any more. Flip flop. 3. Saddam has killed his own people. The Fed gov't killed US citizens during the Civil War. How would you like it if Britain thought that was reason enuf to interfere and depose Lincoln???? Conservatives for YEARS have preached the individual sovereignty of nations. If we can justify the UN violating the sovereignty of Iraq, then our SAME ARGUMENTS justify Iraq violating our sovereignty. But we don't worry about our own logic being used against us, cuz we're the big dogs on the block. Might DOES NOT make right. Never has. Conservatives USED TO beleive that. Flip flop. 4. People cite the fact that they've fired over 1,000 times on US airplanes in Iraqi airspace. Dude, if there were Iraqi airplanes in US airspace, you can bet my FAL would be pointed skyward, with mags full of AP and tracers. UN "agreement" be damned. Besides, they've fired on us over 1,000 times and have gone 0-for-1,000. Not a SINGLE strike on our planes - in THEIR airspace. Last time we fought the "elite" republican guard, we mopped them up in less time than a made for TV movie runs. To me, this is all proof of their ineptness. And these clowns are supposed to be able to launch a chem / bio / nuke weapon at the USA? They are gonna launch an intercontinental nuke, when they can't even hit our planes in THEIR airspace??? I think not. Besides, haven't ya'll been saying one of the reasons to wax these guys is cuz their stuck in the 13th centuiry anyways??? But these 13th Century Clowns can now launch nukes? Flip flop. 5. They've violated UN agreements. SO what??? Conservatives (me included) have been ignoring the UN for YEARS. NOW SUDDENLY violating a UN directive is cause for Saddam to be ousted??? Reports are Israel is the # 1 violator of UN mandates (with the US being number 2 on the list.) Good for them I say, but the logic being used against Saddam now would, if consistently applied, cause us to go to war against Israel next. Just recently, the USA thumbed our nose at the UN on the Small Arms agreement, and we applauded Bush. Now a UN agreement violated is justification to kill people?? Flip flop. 6. During the 2000 Prez campaign, Dubya SPECIFICALLY said he would not engage in nation building. Thus far, we've created a nation in Afghanistan where none existed, and we're getting ready to put a UN puppet into Iraq. You know, The here-to-fore IRRELEVANT UN (until supporting the UN fits the agenda) Conservatives USED To believe in following campaign promises. When we gave our word, it was our bond. Now, we can lie and violate our own agreements, just like the Democrats do. Or....WORSE....just like Saddam does. We've becopme that which we CLAIM to despise. Flip flop. 7. Oil. Total BS I say. All we gotta do is buy a little more from the Russians (per Rush Limbaugh, contracts to do this are almost already in place) or get a little more from the areas of the US the enviro-Nazis have been protecting. That creates supply, which drives down the price. Besides, the Arabs will ALWAYS sell oil to the US. We're their #1 customer. You don't cut off yer #1 customer, else supply gluts, and prices fall like a rock. Conservatives USED to preach supply and demand economics. Not any more apparently. Flip flop. 8. Bush's heavy handedness. The initial talk was of by-passing Congress (in violation of the Constitution which makes it VERY clear that ONLY Congress can declare war.) This type of dictatorial heavy handedness makes me suspicious. Hey Conservatives - remember the Constitution? You KNOW if Clinton had said EXACTLY the same thing Bush has already said, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Partisanship, and violating principle for agenda anyone??? Flip flop. 9. I keep hearing "Oh, we have evidence against Saddam, we just can't show it to you. TRUST US." Sorry, Charlie, but I don't "trust" ANYONE in gov't. If you can make a case for war, MAKE IT. But "trust us" doesn't cut it. Conservatives have ALWAYS said "Always be most suspicious of gov't when their purposes are benevolent." Up until now. Now conservative say "Trust us." Now conservatives put their brain in their pocket. Flip flop. 10. We must protect Israel against tyrants like Saddam. OK, where does it stop? Shall we go back to the Mog??? I hear there are tin horn dictators in prolly 30 countries that need a good horse whippin'. We gonna insert ourselves in those too??? For YEARS conservatives have been saying "The US isn't the worlds policeman." Now suddenly, the tune has changed. Flip flop. And that's the best way I can sum it up. All the principles Conservatives have held to for years now suddenly have gotten flushed like a day old turd in teh bowl. I'm a extremist Conservative, and I REALLY BELEIVED all teh rhetoric we Conservatives have been spouting for years, and CANNOT abide abandoning it all now for this war.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:37:45 PM EST
Bush & Sons, Incorporated aren't true conservatives, so I don't think you need to give up your conservative credentials over the Iraq war. S-I
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:45:30 PM EST
Many interesting points, and I agree with most of them. In my opinion the problem that needs to be addressed is one of nuclear proliferation. Whether your beliefs are focused toward isolationism or that of nation building, you cannot ignore dictators who are pursuing the devlopment and creation of WMDs. I'm not sure what the appropriate diplomatic response is to such threats, but I would prefer to focus on non-proliferation before such a weapon is used in our backyard. (not worried about ICBM's, just suitcases) As far as using the UN as a reason to go to war, it's only an excuse. Israel has been in violation of propositions 242 and 338 for decades. However, I think you can see a division in the structure of the government of Israel and that of Iraq. And you are correct about evidence, I've been waiting for the intelligence community to play it's ace for some time now. When are we going to point the pointy headed blue hat wearing contingent to that "baby milk" factory that glows green at night?
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:46:33 PM EST
I will answer those ten when the anarcho-libertarians and liberals that oppose the war answer the hundreds of questions they should be asking themselves but aren't.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:49:50 PM EST
Oh suki! That's going to get a response! Add to number 9; If we are attacking nations that harbor terrorists why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia? Great thoughts Grarndman.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:52:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: 8. Bush's heavy handedness. The initial talk was of by-passing Congress (in violation of the Constitution which makes it VERY clear that ONLY Congress can declare war.) This type of dictatorial heavy handedness makes me suspicious. Hey Conservatives - remember the Constitution? You KNOW if Clinton had said EXACTLY the same thing Bush has already said, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Partisanship, and violating principle for agenda anyone??? Flip flop.
View Quote
Pretty good points, although I disagree with this point above. Congress has already declared war on Iraq, in 1991. The original war never ended. There was never a surrender or truce to end the war, merely a ceasefire that we signed with Iraq (which allows for the no fly zones which Iraq violates)
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:57:45 PM EST
Thanks for the good responses.
Originally Posted By otto-nyc: In my opinion the problem that needs to be addressed is one of nuclear proliferation. Whether your beliefs are focused toward isolationism or that of nation building, you cannot ignore dictators who are pursuing the devlopment and creation of WMDs.
View Quote
Look at how we handled the USSR. It WAS NOT a matter of acquisition of nukes - they had them. WITH the technology to deliver them on US cities. At will. Did we bluster war?? Hardly. Pres Reagan had the wisdom to understand that Americas freedom, free enterprise system, and a policy of Fortress America would outlast the Soviet Union. It worked. Brilliantly. The question to ask is "Why would what worked then, against a FAR greater threat, NOT work now?" "My" approach (call it unilateral assured destruction) would eliminate the need for responding to every tin horn punk who spikes a geiger counter.
As far as using the UN as a reason to go to war, it's only an excuse.
View Quote
I understand what you are saying - its a way to trick the UN and the Democommies into seeing things "our" way. But I have a philosophical problem with basing the need for US soldiers to die on "excuses." I always want my reasoning to be pure. If the need is there, we should be able to make a case for war WITHOUT smoke and mirrors. Again thanks for your thoughts. I recognize that its Americas future I would put at stake with my "Conservative principles." But I DO REALLY beleive them.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:59:56 PM EST
here we go again..... i don't care if saddamn is as pure as the driven snow. i'm just up for a good ol' fashioned asswhuppin' on some ra...er...mu...uh...terrorist supportin', oil blackmailin', no account, camel drivein' rug merchants. yeah...that's it. i just don't like people that sell rugs.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:07:11 PM EST
Pretty good points, although I disagree with this point above. Congress has already declared war on Iraq, in 1991. The original war never ended. There was never a surrender or truce to end the war
View Quote
This is a good point, which I have thought about. What then of the Korean War?? Would we still be at war with them??
The original war never ended. There was never a surrender or truce to end the war, merely a ceasefire that we signed with Iraq (which allows for the no fly zones which Iraq violates)
View Quote
Ok, now follow this reasoning - If the UN agreement didn't constitute a legal cessation of war with Iraq, then it doesn't constitute a binding agrement on Iraq to cease and desist weapons programs either. At least not in a logical sense. ONLY in a :We say so" sense. And remember, if we make Iraq into a UN fiefdom to be spanked by the world community anytime the UN says so, we;ve created a precedent that can EASILY be used against us when WE, the USA, raises the UN's ire. Like when we snubbed the UN small arms agreement. Its all or none. If a UN agrement is binding on other nations, ONE DAY, when we no longer have the might to stop teh UN, it WILL be binding against us. Good thoughts. But I hate the UN. Everything about it. To me, everything it has ever done or said is a fiction. I live my life like the UN doesn't exist (at least as pertains to all my beleifs and policies)
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:08:42 PM EST
Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB: here we go again..... i don't care if saddamn is as pure as the driven snow. i'm just up for a good ol' fashioned asswhuppin' on some ra...er...mu...uh...terrorist supportin', oil blackmailin', no account, camel drivein' rug merchants. yeah...that's it. i just don't like people that sell rugs.
View Quote
I do like an honest answer. [:D] And that one sir, seems the most honest I;ve heard yet. [:D] [:D]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:14:18 PM EST
I believe that Iraq is an essential part of the war on terror, in that they either now possess (chem-bio) or will possess (nukes) WMD that they would more than happily give to terrorists. Anybody remember the first WTC bombing and the Iraqi ties? They've had a hard on for us for the last twelve years. What happens if he gives Al-Qaeda WMD's and they use them on us? Hell, what about North Korea for that matter (they'll sell anything to anyone with cash)? I feel we should make it clear that any attack on the U.S. with WMD obtained from a legitimate country will result in the vaporization of that country, no matter how many of their "civilians" die. Folks, it's time to be brutal and ironfisted with ANYONE threatening us, and I do mean ANYONE (China, North Korea, Iran, etc.). Take the moral high road and the "it makes us as bad as them" attitude and shove it up your ass! True, we aren't the worlds policeman, but 9-11 ought to inspire enough of a survival instinct to be prepared to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO WIN!!!
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:17:39 PM EST
garandman: I think in the past, especially exploring the concept of MAD with the Soviets, we were faced with an enemy that had something to lose. The Soviets did not operate based on religious fanatacism, and while Saddam's regime doesn't either, he is extremely sympathetic to those who do. I suppose that in the 80's I always looked at the Russians as an enemy for whom I held some level of respect. I hated their policies and I hated their views, but I never viewed them as pure evil as I do some others. I always had the feeling that the Soviets were as afraid of nuclear war as we were. (which shows some signs of intelligence) I do not give Iraq that same credit. As far as the UN excuse, that's exactly what it is. Like you, I dont want my fellow countrymen to die for a powder blue flag.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:29:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By garandman: The main thing to me is that we as Conservatives be true to our principles. Well, this war in Iraq seems to contradict many of them. For instance: 1. Iraq has never INITIATED violence toward the USA. Even the attempt to kill Dubyas daddy was during a time of war. A war WE inserted ourselves into. Where WE first fired on Iraq.
View Quote
No, but they did threaten U.S. interests abroad...Oilfields? You like having a semi-solid economy? Cheap oil does some wonders for it...
2. WOMD's. Saddam's got them. We've got them. Would that justify Putin coming here and ousting our President??? For YEARS Conservative said that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was a deterrent against the godless Commies. Now MAD is suddenly NOT a deterrent against Saddam (Saddam being MUCH less nuclear capable)??? Or call it UNILATERAL assured destruction. Saddam stings us, we obliterate him? Apparently MAD doesn't work any more. Flip flop.
View Quote
NO one is sure what Saddam might do with those weapons. No one is sure what Saddam's plans are. I don't even think Saddam knows what Saddam is doing... The difference between him and the U.S. is that the U.S. is a LOT more stable.
3. Saddam has killed his own people. The Fed gov't killed US citizens during the Civil War.
View Quote
Yes, American people were killed during the Civil War. However, that was a Civil War and NOT genocide (don't even try to be nitpicking and try to define this as genocide...it wasn't. It was a war, not a holocaust. People weren't rounded up en masse and murdered...), as like what happened in Iraq.
How would you like it if Britain thought that was reason enuf to interfere and depose Lincoln???? Conservatives for YEARS have preached the individual sovereignty of nations. If we can justify the UN violating the sovereignty of Iraq, then our SAME ARGUMENTS justify Iraq violating our sovereignty. But we don't worry about our own logic being used against us, cuz we're the big dogs on the block. Might DOES NOT make right. Never has. Conservatives USED TO beleive that. Flip flop
View Quote
Yet again...Iraq was/is a serious threat to U.S. interests. Why are you defending this murderer? All we want is a safe country and a majority of the population to have some presents under the tree at Christmas. Int'l stability assists in stabilizing a troubled economy.
4. People cite the fact that they've fired over 1,000 times on US airplanes in Iraqi airspace. Dude, if there were Iraqi airplanes in US airspace, you can bet my FAL would be pointed skyward, with mags full of AP and tracers. UN "agreement" be damned.
View Quote
We agree on this one.
And these clowns are supposed to be able to launch a chem / bio / nuke weapon at the USA? They are gonna launch an intercontinental nuke, when they can't even hit our planes in THEIR airspace???
View Quote
Maybe not directly at us...but i'd be willing to bet that they would supply terrorists with a baby nuke or dirty bomb or anthrax or whatever. Are you that naive that you don't think he would? Remember how Saddam was offering 25000 bucks to the families of suicide bombers if the bombers completed their mission against Israeli targets?
5. They've violated UN agreements. SO what???
View Quote
So what??? Well, the way i read it is that the agreements were in place to try to keep that region just a little more stable...remember how important that oil thing is? Don't get on me for this whole damn war being about oil...I'm sure you have driven a care or ridden a bus or if not, your bike bearings were lubed with grease...
Conservatives (me included) have been ignoring the UN for YEARS. NOW SUDDENLY violating a UN directive is cause for Saddam to be ousted??? Reports are Israel is the # 1 violator of UN mandates (with the US being number 2 on the list.) Good for them I say, but the logic being used against Saddam now would, if consistently applied, cause us to go to war against Israel next. Just recently, the USA thumbed our nose at the UN on the Small Arms agreement, and we applauded Bush. Now a UN agreement violated is justification to kill people?? Flip flop.
View Quote
Yet again, we have that whole stability thing at the center of the spotlight. Saddam probably doesn't know what he's doing... And after he's gone, i doubt things will be any better over there. That's probably part of why the U.N. conditions are in place.
6. During the 2000 Prez campaign, Dubya SPECIFICALLY said he would not engage in nation building. Thus far, [red]we've created a nation in Afghanistan where none existed,[red]
View Quote
SO??? so what's wrong with trying to create a little stability in a shithole nation that only bred terrorists? If we'd just gone and kicked ass then left, that wouldn't have helped the situation any and in 10 years we'd probably see a new crop of terrorists born and raised in Assghanistan pull another 9/11. Yet another action that *probably* helped make the U.S. safer (or at least was intended to...)
and we're getting ready to put a UN puppet into Iraq.
View Quote
Stability, yet again. Read above. HAVE YOU EVER READ THE LUCE ESSAY??? if not i suggest you do. Very insightful.
You know, The here-to-fore IRRELEVANT UN (until supporting the UN fits the agenda)
View Quote
Why not...if it's there, use it. Sounds like good ol' political opportunism to me...
Conservatives USED To believe in following campaign promises. When we gave our word, it was our bond. Now, we can lie and violate our own agreements, just like the Democrats do. Or....WORSE....just like Saddam does. We've becopme that which we CLAIM to despise. Flip flop.
View Quote
Can't say we disagree... I don't think G W B is exactly the kind of conservative i think of myself as...me being honest and retaining a pretty full set of values...
8. Bush's heavy handedness. The initial talk was of by-passing Congress (in violation of the Constitution which makes it VERY clear that ONLY Congress can declare war.) This type of dictatorial heavy handedness makes me suspicious.
View Quote
Me too. See above comment about GWB.
9. I keep hearing "Oh, we have evidence against Saddam, we just can't show it to you. TRUST US." Sorry, Charlie, but I don't "trust" ANYONE.
View Quote
I hear ya, however, I'd be willing to bet that they have satellite photos or some such b.s. that shows the Iraqis leaving the site with Dump trucks full of WMD shit out the back door right as the inspectors are pulling up the driveway...It wouldn't surprise me, anyway.
10. We must protect Israel against tyrants like Saddam. OK, where does it stop? Shall we go back to the Mog??? I hear there are tin horn dictators in prolly 30 countries that need a good horse whippin'. We gonna insert ourselves in those too???
View Quote
Israel about the only ally we have in that region. The rest of our actions over there have had to do with U.S. interests or security, for the most part. --not including 3rd world shitholes like Somalia and the like. I'm isolationist in a lot of respects. I don't agree with all that GWB does, and I don't think of him as the same type of Conservative that I am. I'm also not trying to antagonize you, G-man, I'm just playing a little Devils Advocate (No, not [i]playing[/i] him...) and trying to get some more talking points out there. Henry R. Luce wrote [u]American Century [/u]This essay explains a lot of the reasoning behind current government foreign policy and actions abroad for the last 60 years. I strongly recommend reading it. Even if you don't agree with all that's in it, it is still very insightful.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:38:45 PM EST
I want proof. I want to see UN fuks carrying 55 gallon drums of nerve gas, nukes, whatever, out of hidden bunkers DAILY. If you want a war on terror, why don't we continue with Hezbolla? Forget Iraq, those fuks have had theirs LONG overdue.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:39:13 PM EST
Great post Garandman. I definately agree with 95% of it. I do think there's the variable that otto-nyc brought up, the fanaticism factor, that is exteremly valid. Does it merit an all out war? I'm not sure, but there is a big difference between the fanatic Islamic threat and the examples of past historical actions outlined in your post. Like otto said, the others had something to lose, they didn't sleep soundly at night "knowing" that even in their own destruction, paradise awaited them. Again, great points, and well worth discussing actively on a national level. The question to me is do we evolve our previous positions on these issues based on an entirely new threat to avoid a possible disaster greater than 9/11? I don't think Saddam is anywhere near launching a WOMD against us [i]from[/i] Iraq. I do believe strongly that once he has developed them, which he absolutely will, that he'd put them in to the hands of those very willing to bring that weapon to our shores, one way or another. Is that a risk we should be willing to accept in the name of standing by our pre-9/11 doctrine? Or is a new, more aggressive position the only way to assure our safety now that we see just what these whack jobs are willing to do? Personally, something in my head tells me that a failure to adapt rapidly to this threat is every bit as dangerous as the threat itself. The form that adaptation comes in is really the issue, not whether we [i]should[/i] adapt.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:44:46 PM EST
"1. Iraq has never INITIATED violence toward the USA. Even the attempt to kill Dubyas daddy was during a time of war. A war WE inserted ourselves into. Where WE first fired on Iraq" Know something we don't? If you know this to be the case fill us in,from where I stand they back up folks who want very much to kill Americans and have. Even the cry baby anti-war euros will tell you this is true.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 3:50:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:02:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 4:06:49 PM EST by Bign]
otto-nyc garandman: I think in the past, especially exploring the concept of MAD with the Soviets, we were faced with an enemy that had something to lose. The Soviets did not operate based on religious fanatacism, and while Saddam's regime doesn't either, he is extremely sympathetic to those who do. I suppose that in the 80's I always looked at the Russians as an enemy for whom I held some level of respect. I hated their policies and I hated their views, but I never viewed them as pure evil as I do some others. I always had the feeling that the Soviets were as afraid of nuclear war as we were. (which shows some signs of intelligence) I do not give Iraq that same credit. As far as the UN excuse, that's exactly what it is. Like you, I dont want my fellow countrymen to die for a powder blue flag.
View Quote
I find communist no more or less despicable than any muslim dictatorship. I really hate communism![pissed]. Stalin (self proclaimed "man of steel")was probably 10x more evil than Saddam. In the early rebuildin of Russia after WWII he would have families and even children (one story was a 10 year old girl) where they were killed for stealing the "government's grain" form "their own farms" He had slave labor and many were killed for calapsing on the job Other "citizens" would rat on each other out for small rewards from the government. If you were havin a beer in a bar and let something slip against the government or stalin...they would be waiting at your home to kill you when you got back... FUCK COMMUNISM saddam is chump change compared to commie russia. I beleive saddam is working on every weapon known to man, but I also think we know where all his shit is, and could just take care of it with tommahawks and regualar old bombing! I think the Vietnam War was more neccessar than this war...and NOTHING is going to stop GW from starting this war in my opinion. But make no mistake, when our boys begin, they will have nothing but support from me!
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:14:11 PM EST
Bign: I'm sure you didn't miss the part of my message where I stated that I [b]hated[/b] the Soviet policies and views. Stalin was a horrible dictator. The main point of my previous post was to illustrate my opinion that mutually assured destruction worked when negotiating with the former Soviet Union, and that I do not think MAD applies when dealing with the potential for nuclear terrorism.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:28:12 PM EST
Post from garandman -
1. Iraq has never INITIATED violence toward the USA.
View Quote
[b]USS Stark[/b] - 17 March 1987 37 dead American sailors (two lost at sea, bodies never recovered): Doran Bolduc, Lacy, Washington Bradley Brown, Calera Alabama Jeffrey Calkins, Rickfield Springs, N.Y. Mark M. Caouette, Fitchburg, Mass. John Ciletta, Brigantine, N.J. Brian Clinefelter, San Bernadino, Calif. Antonio Daniels, Greenville, S.C. Christopher DeAngelis, Dumont, N.J. James Dunlap, Osceola Mills, Pa. Steven Erwin, Troy, Mich. Jerry Farr, Charleston, S.C. Vernon Foster, Jaacksonville, Fla. Dexter Grissett, Macon, Ga. William Hansen, Reading, Mass. Daniel Homicki, Elizabeth, N.J. Kenneth Janusik, Clearwater, Fla. Steven Kendall, Honolulu, Hawaii Stephen Kiser, Elkhart, Ind. Ronnie Lockett, Bessemer, Ala. Thomas MacMullen, Darby, Pa. Charles Moller, Columbus, Ga. Jeffrey Phelps, Locust Grove, Va. Randy Pierce, Choctaw, Okla. James Plonsky, Van Nuys, Calif. Kelly Quick, Linden, Mich. Earl Ryals, Boca Raton, Fla. Robert Shippee, Adams Center, N.Y. Jeffrey Sibley, Metairie, La. Lee Stephens, Pemberton, Ohio James Stevens, Visalia, Calif. Martin Supple, Jacksonville, Fla. Gregory Tweady, Champaign, Ill. Joseph Watson, Ferndale, Mich. Wayne Weaver, New Bethlehem, Pa. Terrance Weldon, Coram, N.Y. Lloyd Wilson, Summerville, S.C. Vincent Ulmer, Bay Minette, Ala ...and wounding 21 other American sailors! [img]http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/aa7c0220.jpg[/img] [img]http://gridlockmag.com/rumblings/images/stark.jpg[/img]
Even the attempt to kill Dubyas daddy was during a time of war.
View Quote
The Gulf War ended with a cease-fire agreement on [b]February 28, 1991.[/b] Iraq was indeed behind a foiled car-bomb plot to kill former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait [b]April 14-16, 1993![/b] [b][u]Not[/u] exactly 'during a time of war' eh?[/b]
A war WE inserted ourselves into. Where WE first fired on Iraq.
View Quote
Heh-heh-heh! You must be chewing the khat tonight! [:D] Eric The(Silly)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:43:20 PM EST
Alot of good thoughts here. I'll need to go back thru and re-read them. But I still think Campy nailed it. This is all about whacking people who sell rugs. [:D] Oh, and "Hi Eric." [:D]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:46:05 PM EST
My greatest concern also lies with the nuclear threat. MAD worked with the U.S.S.R. because they had the same fear of an attack as we did. The leadership of Iraq sees martyrdom as a noble event. In some ways they long for it. Saddam sees martyrdom as a perfect end to a glorious leadership career. (He is not expected to even consider exile to another country. That would be contrary to everything he is doing -- palaces built in honor of himself, rebuilding ancient cities with his name inscribed in most every brick, parades that present Saddam as a decendant of the prophet Mohammed, etc.) We are dealing with a militant religious mentality, and we know how religious martyrs fight and die for their cause without the luxury of logical thinking. If we leave them alone there will never be a level of balance that will be reached by opposing weaponry. Their belief emphasizes that they wait until they are strong enough to make war, until then they live in that anticipation. Militant Islam has declared war on America. We do not have the option to not choose to fight. They chose to pick the fight, and I believe we must stand up to it.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:51:37 PM EST
Post from garandman -
2. WOMD's. Saddam's got them. We've got them.
View Quote
It's nice to see you admit something that most punk-azzed liberals won't admit - Saddam does possess or is trying desperately to possess weapons of mass destruction. That's a start!
Would that justify Putin coming here and ousting our President???
View Quote
Talk about the [b]Mother of All Nonsequiturs![/b] What the dickens does Putin and Russia have to do with whether the United States PERMITS Iraq to have access to weapons of mass destruction? To kick-start your faded memory, we won a brilliantly conducted war against Iraq! They agreed to certain matters in order to keep the US Army and Marines and a contingent of other nations' troops out of Baghdad and away from their Bagh-ladies! (Oooh, that is too cool - Bagh-Dad and Bagh-Ladies!) I don't care if they agreed in the cease fire to teach Pig-latin in their public schools - if they agreed to it, then it's an agreement! No more, no less! American blood was put at risk and shed to put this SHITHEAD down and keep him down! Now he continues to mess around with weapons of mass destruction? Then take his AZZ down for good! Remember, [b]garandman[/b], he killed 37 US sailors in 1987, and he killed 148 more US service men and women in combat, and another 145 US servicemen and women died in nonbattle deaths, during the Gulf War!
For YEARS Conservative said that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was a deterrent against the godless Commies.
View Quote
Yes, and it was when it was the US and the Soviets against each other. We were equally capable of putting the other nation out of existence!
Now MAD is suddenly NOT a deterrent against Saddam (Saddam being MUCH less nuclear capable)???
View Quote
Different scenario altogether, my good man! The US Mainland has little to fear of this goofball, but our allies do! And besides, he agreed not to mess around with weapons of mass destruction, didn't he? Why are you so willing to let Saddam off the hook after asking for and receiving a cease-fire? One of the conditions for the cease-fire was that Iraq would dismantle and eschew any attempt at acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It appears he is breaking that condition! Why let this killer of Americans get off lightly? Hmmmm?????? [b]Cause he is [u]not[/u] Israel?[/b] [:D] Eric The(Eureka!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 4:55:54 PM EST
Iraq fired knowingly on the USS Stark, there was no mistake, the OOD and the CO had been in coms with the Iraqi pilot for 10 minutes before they were struck. Laying blame on the CO of the USS Stark as well, they were running Engineering Casualty Control Training Drills while in hostile waters. During those drills they drop the generators off line as to shift to emergency power. Because of that they shut down the electronics, including their ESM gear which happened to be the Raytheon AN/SLQ-32(V)2 the one true way to detect the French made Exocet SSM. Fired from 40 miles out it would have required no more than 5 minutes to aquire, launch, reaquire, terminal dive and detonate. But that is more time than it takes to power up and load the OS and software for the SLQ-32. The Stark should have never happened, and we should have made Iraq a parking lot back then. I could go into a lot of detail on the USS Stark, that would raise the anger of everyone, because I do know what happened there. But what difference would it make. I lost friends and roommates onboard. G-Man, simply put we can not apply our views of civilization to the middle east. We do not truly understand Islam, and the grip it has on those people. People constantly try to give them pardon but saying that it is because they resent what we have in America. So why do they bomb places in the Phillipines, and Indonesia? They do kill in the name of religion, and have from the start. You know as well as I do that true Christian's starting with Jesus, Himself, have not fought in the name of religion. Yet mohammed himself led islam in the killing. While I don't disagree with all your points, we cannot apply our morals and standards to alien peoples. dave
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 5:17:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 5:19:37 PM EST by 9divdoc]
Other than Iraq being a source of both materials, finance, training and support for al Qaeda and most of the islamic terrorists.. (You been hanging out with Sean Penn, Hillary Clinton Al Gore and Jane Fonda again..?) This combat vet says...Iraq and Hussein have to go..along with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, those Muslims who make sex slaves out of small Christian children...torture amputate mutilate and burn alive those who will not renounce Christ...have to go... Those who strap explosives to their little ones and send them out to kill other little ones because they are Jews or Christians have to go.. And those so called Americans who leech their freedom off the blood & sweat of combat vets and Gold Star Mother's tears ought to imo go with them.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 5:19:18 PM EST
Since ETH said it much better than I could, I'll just say that I agree wholeheartedly with him.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 6:06:41 PM EST
1. The attempt on Bush pere was made after the cease-fire. If we're still at war, let's finish him off. I'm perfectly happy with waxing nations before they attack us. In fact, that's what I'd prefer to have happen. 2. I'm perfectly OK with us having WMD while at the same time denying them to others, such as Idi Amin or Pol Pot. 3. I don't have much sympathy for Stalinist dictators. i think they largely forfit legitimacy, and if they can be overthrown quickly and cheaply, so much the better. (British interference on the side of the Confederacy would have been to support slavery; it's not as if the two sides were moral equals.) 4. The no-fly zones were part of the cease fire. They prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of Kurds. The attacks on the aircraft aren't some kind of popular uprising, they're the result of a dictatorship ordering its military to attack. Yes, they can attack us. See september 11. Multiply this by a factor of 100. 5. The UN resultions are part of the cease-fire agreement. If Saddam doesn't like them, we can go back to having the 1st cav shoot at them. 6. When the facts show me wrong, I change my mind. How about you? 7. Saddam will sell us oil, but he'll also buy atom bombs and nerve gas and smallpox with the money he gets. 8. What's your complaint? Congress approved war with Iraq. 9. Even the UN, British, and French seem to be on board with the WMD violations by Iraq, despite their interests in saying otherwise. I'll bet you a beer they find a bunch of prohibited stuff after the invasion. 10. Israel can take care of itself. I'm interested in preventing the US from getting nuked.
Top Top