Yeah, we blew it 6-7 years while Monica was blowing Bill.

It was over when Bill withdrew the UN arms inspectors.  The daily bombing was about  keeping up appearances with the electorate about being tough with Saddam.

How can INVADING Iraq again with ground forces be possibly justified, other than settling an old score with a sonofabitch who might have been smarter than George and Bill?  

I don't mean even under the strict guidelines of Just War theory that has existed for 1000 years, but even in this countries eyes. Nothing I've seen in print gives any consolation.

It's not about oil this time - a real reason.  Even Iraq would cheerfully sell us all we could carry.

Blast me for a fool, but we blew it long ago.        

How can it be justified???

Sept 11th.  

If you're looking for something other than their terrorist affiliations, then yea, how about their breaking of the conditions of surrender.

AS long as we say its justified and necessary thats good enough for me. Besides who's gonna stop us? China? No. Nobody. We are the biggest kid on the block, we got a score to settle and absolutely nobody out there can stop us from doing what we want. It sounds arrogant but its the truth.

Justified? Saddam is a megalomanic pyschopath whose actions are only limited by his capabilities. He models himself after Joseph Stalin and is not above killing his own family. We still have a casus belli IMO from his assassination attempt on former President Bush in Kuwait, shortly after the Gulf War. Iraq is also in violation of the U.N. Security Council mandates on weapons inspections. Is there anybody that thinks that returning to that charade is not a fool's errand?


[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=93475[/url]

While I am absolutely for kicking Sadaam's sorry ass all over Iraq, then executing him live in front of the global press for all to see, I do want to point out that while I see your point rainman, if all the other kids decided to stop us, they would. While we may be the biggest, baddest kid on the block, if everybody wanted a piece at the same time, we would be cooked. We all know this would not be the case, but it is good to be humble from time to time. While we may be able to whip'em all one on one, all at once does not favor us.

What does Bill Clinton have to do with it, I mean really. Weren't we at war with Iraq when President Bush was in office?? He should have finished what he started. Then Clinton wouldn't have had to do anything with Iraq and a lot of our troops wouldn't have to enforce a "no-fly zone".

1) Iraq is refusing to comply with UN weapons inspections, which by the way the US was the major imputes for.

2) saddam insane seems bent on developing weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems.

3) If he gets WMD he will use them or loan them out to others to do his bidding.

4) He is a terrorist, and supports other terrorists.

5) Because the US says so.

As far as we can do it alone......... Yes we can, Britian, Canada, Australia, Germany, and maybe a few others will support us, and even if they don't they won't oppose us. France will whine about whatever we do, we just tell the Germans are headed to the border and they'll be throwing down rifles.........

Russia may or may not be an obstacle esp if we can find a link to Checnyan (sp) rebels through Al Queda or Saddam. The Russians don't want those rebels, if we can prove the rebels get support from outside of Russia from Iraq the Russians will be for it. Even if they are against, what forces do they have that can project a presence there?? Do the Russians care that much??

China may not like it, because they like to cause problems for us. What can they do, I mean really?? What kind of naval forces do they have? I think China may also realize the US is pissed like it never has been before. If China gets in the way of the US getting rid of terrorists they may not like what the US reaction is, and they know it.

I think there is plenty of reasons to go after Iraq, it is the way it is done that will be up for debate.

It can justified as simply as the French and British would have been justified in kicking the Nazi troops out of the Rhineland in 1935, when Hitler decided to 'remilitarize the Rhineland' in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

Indeed, the Nazi troops were under orders to retreat in the event that they met with [u]any[/u] opposition from French troops!

Saddam and his government signed an agreement with the victorious coalition forces that made his government agree to inspections, sanctions, embargoes, etc.

If he has broken the terms of that armistice then we are free to continue the fight!

Eric The(Round2)Hun[>]:)]  

How about because we just plain don't like him! I didn't know we [i]needed[/i] a reason [smoke]

And we wonder how can some one do the planes in to buildings when we have no reason to get iraq,other than bush .sr counldn't get it done .


These other countries are only doing to us as we have done to them. Know history b4 trying to make it .

An additional reason for going into Iraq may be as simple as this:

Why isn't Iraq answering questions concerning the fate of Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher, a possible prisoner of war from the Gulf War?

If they do, in fact, have an American POW that wasn't released when the other POWs were back in 1991, then [u]that[/u] would be an act of war against the United States.

If they fail to give us a satisfactory reason for all of the reported sightings, etc., then it may be that US troops just need to go into Iraq and search for our missing serviceman.

BTW, Lt. Cmdr. Michael Scott Speicher is now listed as 'MIA', rather than 'KIA.'

See article:[url]http://webcenter.newssearch.netscape.com/aolns_display.adp?key=200203111757000258157_aolns.src[/url]

Eric The(LeaveTheLightsOn,We'reComing!)Hun[>]:)]

Victory.

so far, the axis of evil is just talk. if we invade iraq, what do you think is going through the minds of syria, north korea, china, iran... especially after the "release" of the potential nuclear targets?.....we will be next. as we speak, i bet the "axis" is actually having discussions concerning this. if there is not an axis of evil, i'm afraid GWB is creating one. possibly setting the stage for WWIII.

Isn't it a little odd that this aviator was considered KIA for eleven years, but when the US is looking for an excuse to escelate its conflict with Iraq, evidence suddenly emerges that he might be a POW?

I don't see why Iraq would bother to secretly hold a prisoner for so long.  His value as a source of intelligence would have ended years ago.

Post from Renamed -

[b]Why ask 'why'?[/b]

We don't need any further reasons to go after Saddam - his refusal to abide by the terms of the 'surrender' from the Gulf War are sufficient all alone!

Eric The(JustDoIt)Hun[>]:)]

WWIII has started, we just have an underground army we are fighting.  If you don't believe it is war, I'll send you some pics I took at ground zero on 9/11 that I'm sure will enlighten you.

Personally, 9/11 is all we need to justify a conflict with Iraq, although I can see Bush turning it on the arms inspectors rather than terrorism, but we will finish Iraq as a terrorist state in the end.

To whom, exactly, did Iraq surrender at the end of Desert Storm?

If the only other party to the armistice was the United States, the determination of violations would be fairly simple.  But what if the surrender was made to the whole "coalition" of the time, including France and Saudi Arabia?  If the other signatories don't consider Iraq to be in violation, does the US have any standing to cry foul on its own?

I personally believe this is one of the problems with our country. We feel like we have to justify all of our actions to the rest of the world, the exception being the "War on Terrorism".

We need to do what needs to be done, while being fair at the same time. It needs to be known that if you mess with us then we will kill you. If you mess with our allies then we will kill you. Nothing personal, we just aren't going to put up with it anymore. We are the most powerful nation on the face of the earth so don't f*ck with us or anybody else or we will make you disappear.

Had we held this position all along the terrorist attacks may have never occured.

i do not consider sending troops to afganistan and ousting the taliban WWIII. when you have several world gubmints fighting other gubmints, thats WORLD WAR!!!!!

BTW, do u think i have no access to the media and did not see the pictures of ground zero????

To:OLY- M4gery
Some folks think that Bubba caused Sept.11 by downsizing the military, and opening our borders to all. They think he is a traitor.

I'm with Ponyboy all the way.

We need to be meaner, tougher.

Peace through strength.

What the father didn't finish the son will.

Lets Roll

Bulldog OUT

Would you mind trying to reply in plain Enlish?  I think you might be full of it, but I want to make sure [:D] before I say it.  What point are you trying to make here?

History?
Bush Sr. stopped when the mission was over, according to the UN resolution.  Had he continued onto Bagdad, it would have been alone.
It would have been without the support of the "coalition".

Those same Democrats who complain that Bush Sr. "counldn't get it done" (hinting that they would have supported our attacking Bagdad), are at the same time criticizing Bush Jr. for acting "unilaterally".

Snakes.

(before you advise people to "know history", maybe you should brush up on some of the basics, hmm?)

Sodamn Insane is training terrorists to come over here and kill you and your family.  Is that reason enough or would you rather be having dinner some night in a restaurant and have your body impailed with nails and burned beyond recognition?

We have a clear cause to go to war with Iraq because they've been breaking their terms of surrender for YEARS now.  The problem is, no one thought it was worth going to war over till now...which was a mistake.

if GWB didn't group china, syria, iran, north korea and iraq into the axis of evil, it would be no problem to wage war with iraq. but, he made a stupid mistake of aligning these countries together.

So tell me, exsanquinate, how that 'stupid mistake' causes us any problems in waging war with Saddam?

Besides, he didn't include China and Syria with the other three in his 'axis.'

Do you fear that the Iranians and the North Koreans will join forces with Saddam against us?

Eric The(WhatAreYouFearfulOf?)Hun[>]:)]

Why does anyone on this board defend Bill Clinton?  He wants to take your guns!  

As for what he had to do with it, how about the fact that he did nothing about the first WTC attack, nothing about the embassy bombings in Africa, and nothing about the USS Cole.  The inaction from his administration in response to these attacks emboldened these assholes to carry out the September 11 attacks.  They had come to the conclusion that nothing would happen to them because nothing had happened yet.  He stripped the military and the intelligence community almost bare and you ask what does he have to do with this.  PPPUUULLLEEEAAAASSSSEEEE!!!!!!!

In War when you give aid and comfort to the enemy ..you become the enemy
When you harbor, feed, give financial support, equip, train, in all ways sponser and support terrorist who attacked us even before 9-11 ..Remember the WTC was attacked twice...OK City ...also linked to Islamic terroists..
These people have sworn to anihilate us..gee should we stop them over there or wait for them to kill more of us here?
I spent a year in the bush in Vietnam..back in 69-70 and all I can say is I wish I was 19 again so I could get back in harness and go after them after what they have done to our people..
The best defense is a strong offense..these people are like cockroaches
you arent going to get them all but you can take their numbers down sufficiently so that it will be a while before they become a problem again..
imo of course.....

from cnn.com:





from the bbc:




i stand corrected, GWB did not include china and syria in the axis of evil. but, he did include them on the nuclear "hit list". in addition, north korea and china are allies.

therefore, if you wage war with iraq (named as an axis of evil)don't tell me the other named countries are not going to look at contingency plans, namely allies (north korea and china) and potential military targets (just as we are doing).

Hi all,

All this talk about the seven countries on our "nuclear hit list", does anyone here honestly believe that those coutries INTEND to nuke us at the earliest opportunity?

Well?

DaMan posted this a month ago: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=93574&page=1[/url]

According to him the deal is ALREADY done. Around the 1 year anniversery of 9/11 we will go to war with Iraq. The requisit parties have already been paid off, the next 9 months will be building ordinance and conditioning world public opinion to the enevitability of it all.

Um we were talking about Iraq, which yes the US had a hand in "causing" well before Clinton was POTUS.



I have a grasp on history, thanx. The US is the most powerful nation EVER in terms of raw destructive force. Even without nukes when you compare us to other world powers we have a unsurpassed military capability in comparision. We are the most reluctant superpower/power when it comes to using force because it furthers our national interest.

We get called to be the "world's policeman" when it suits the rest of the world. But when we decide to use military force the rest of the world starts getting all reluctant on us.

I don't think the US should be a bully, and we should care what our Allies say, esp the ones that really stick by us Canada, Australia, England, and lately Germany.

Having said that Iraq is a terrorist state and is doing what the can to make WMD. If they make them they WILL use them. Because they have in the past, on Iraqi's. That is more than enough reason to stop them.

If that means wiping out their military, military research, or their leadership I'm for it.

Speicher was listed as KIA almost immediately, because there wasn't a "downed pilot" beacon recieved from him. The USN switched beacons when the war started. The beacons were larger than the ones the replaced and didn't fit in the pilot's vest properly. They think the transmitter and the pilot were seperated on ejection.

Since no beacon was received there was NO SEARCH AND RESCUE ATTMPTED.

After the war Saudi military hunting in Iraq's desert came across the crash site, 3 years appx afeter the war, and reported the site to the US.

A lot of US military brass were more ready to cover up the missing pilot than go through what it would take to get him back.

Iraqi defectors also corroborate the fact that a US pilot was captured very early in the war, in fact they were able to pick Speicher out of a line up.

THE US LEFT A MAN BEHIND AND FELT IT WAS EASIER TO COVER IT UP THAN ADMIT RESPONSIBILITY.

Speicher was probably killed by the Iraqi's after he was captured, and it was also easier for them to cover it up than to admit it.

I'm more than willing to blame him for all the stuff you listed, because he did those things. I prefer to blame him for the stuff he has done.

But I don't see his direct link to Iraq, we should've taken care of that situation when we were at war with Iraq.

Post from OLY-M4gery -

Can you think of [u]any[/u] other Allies that 'really stick by us'?

Anyone at all? Maybe one that votes along with the USA in the United Nations probably 95% of the time compared to Canada, Australia, England, and Germany's 65-80% of the time?

Eric The(AndIsANuclearPower,AsWell?)Hun[>]:)]

in regards to Bush Sr. "not getting the job done" i have always been under the impression that his intent was to pursue the matter to the end (read: get the bastard), but that, as someone else mentioned, it was not within the objectives of the U.N. coalition against Iraq and also that the coalition partners weren't exactly keen on him doing it.

it's easy to second guess a person sitting behind a keyboard with 20/20 hindsight and "what we know now" information. there's more to being a president that signing or vetoing legislation as it moves across your desk.  maybe he should have done it anyway, without the support of the coalition.  but perhaps the consequences of acting alone in this endeavor, based on the information held at the time, pointed to no action.  

i don't know.  let's not spend time whimpering over the past.  let's just fix what we know to be broken, dammit.

India !!  Eric, is it India ??`

Oly,
my memory will not 100% but here's what I do remember.

The President and advisors thought it necessary to go to the UN for a resolution in order to accumulate the coalition forces thought necessary. (The UN resolution gave 'cover' to those countries that might have otherwise been reluctant to act.)
The UN did approve a resolution for the ouster of Iraq from Kuwait but did not approve the ouster of Saddam.
The President lived within the UN mandate.

Also there was fear that removing Saddam and drastically weakening Iraq might open the door for Iran to make a move.

(From memory.)

Commando,
I believe there is little new news regarding targeting these countries.  These countries have been targeted by nuclear weapons for years.

Now what I do find interesting is why the current government has chosen to make this news.

In response to your....."those countries intend to nuke us ?

North Korea cannot feed its' people.  I'll leave it you to decide what a government that is perfectly willing to starve their own people in order to stay in power might or might not do.

Post from 5subslr5 -


You, subsailor, are a card! I'm certain that sense of humor kept you in good stead under the Arctic Ice Sheet in your non-landlubbing days.

No, [i][b]SubSahib[/b][/i], it's not India! They vote with the US around 40% of the time![:D]

Eric The(GuessAgain)Hun[>]:)]

The ticket returns alone justify [i]Gulf War II: The Vengeance![/i][:D]

[img]http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3809/gulf_war_2.jpg[/img]

WASHINGTON, DC—At a Pentagon press conference Monday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld touted the military's upcoming Gulf War II: The Vengeance as "even better than the original."

"If you thought the first one was good, just wait until you see the sequel," Rumsfeld said of Gulf War II, scheduled to hit Iraqi theaters of operation March 22. "In the original, as you no doubt know, we defeat Saddam Hussein, only to let him slip away at the very end. This time, we're going back in to take out the trash."

     Rumsfeld said the soon-to-be-unleashed war will feature special effects beyond anything seen in the original.

     "Gulf War I was done 11 years ago, and war-making technology has advanced tremendously since then," Rumsfeld said. "From the guns to the planes to the missile-guidance systems, what you'll see in this one puts the original Gulf War to shame."

     "The budget for Gulf War II: The Vengeance is somewhere in the neighborhood of $85 billion," Rumsfeld continued. "And every penny of it is up there on your screen."

     Waged in 1991 at a cost of $61 billion, the first Gulf War was a major hit, making household names out of stars Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Wolf Blitzer. Asked who would star in the sequel, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was coy.

     "I don't want to give away too much, but let's just say you're likely to see a few familiar faces pop up," Myers said. "I will say that the son of one of the key characters in the first one, back then just a boy, is now all grown up and ready to take his rightful place at the head of the alliance."

     Myers did confirm that the plot revolves around the Rebel forces' efforts to capture arch-nemesis Hussein, whom they believe is building a weapon of mass destruction somewhere deep within the mysterious and forbidding No-Fly Zone.

[cont.]

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan come to mind, but their support is much more conditional.

I was double stating my point...........

[img]http://graphics.theonion.com/pics_3809/gulf_war_2_jump.jpg[/img] "Obviously, Saddam will be back," Myers said. "He's the perfect villain: ruthless, efficient, and sinister. It would be an affront to all the fans not to include him. Beyond that, what's going to happen is anybody's guess. One thing, though, is guaranteed: We're going to have more action, more danger, and definitely more kill power than the first time around."

     "We've already started preliminary shooting," Myers said, "and so far, what we've got is unbelievable."

     In addition to a major PR push, Gulf War II will be accompanied by a major merchandising campaign. Pentagon has secured the commitment of Topps for a series of cards supporting the effort. It has also brokered a first-look deal with CNN, guaranteeing the network full access to the front lines, as well as first crack at interviewing the men and women behind the scenes. The Pentagon has also signed Dan Rather to a two-cry deal.

     In the 11 years since the original Gulf War, few conflicts have come close to matching the level of support and press attention generated by that operation.

     "We were disappointed by our numbers in Bosnia," Rumsfeld said. "That particular conflict played primarily to an art-house crowd. Your mainstream audiences didn't connect with the complexities of the centuries-old ethnic clash you had going there. But this time, we feel we've got something very accessible that will play in Peoria. I mean, how can you go wrong with an 'Axis of Evil'?"

     Though Gulf War II does not open fire for another two weeks, it has screened for select audiences in Los Angeles. Ain't It Cool News, the popular website run by Harry Knowles, recently leaked an anonymous review of the conflict.

     "The battle sequences are even better than Black Hawk Down," Knowles wrote. "And Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, while only given a little action, exudes a Tarantino cool."

     Pentagon officials, meanwhile, are already thinking about a third installment.

     "There's no reason this Iraq thing can't be a franchise for us like those wars with Germany or the Communists used to be," Rumsfeld said. "The public loves it, the soldiers love it, the media love it. And even if the U.S. wins at the end of the second one, there are still plenty of possibilities for a third: Saddam could be destroyed, only to be replaced by an even greater evil. Then, of course, there's the prequel set in the Stone Age, the era we bomb Iraq back to at the end of the third one. As far as we're concerned, this thing is just getting started."

Man, I LOVE The Onion![:D]

Juggernaut

I think that President Bush said that they considered getting rid of saddam, either in the war or in the negotatiations to end the war. But they decided against it because they were afraid of several things.

Would Iraq dissolve into several terrorist states without a strong central government?

Would saddam's succesor be worse?

What would the Iraqi people feel about the US taking away their leader, saddam, amd what would the repercussions be 20 years from now. (think Shah of Iran, Somoza in Nicaragua, Our Lebenase incursion).

Having said that it was certainly a tough decision............At the end of the Gulf War I was IMMEDIATELY disapointed that saddam was allowed to stay in power. (Maybe one of the few times I was right)

The only justification we need is our marines on their front door and our army at their back door.

OK...Why would we want to invade Iraq?  Hmmmmm...let's see.

Well, let's cut the crap and forget all the BS reasons...most of which I like, such as Bush 41 ought to have sent the 7th Corps roaring into Bagdhad at the end of the war...or Saddam is a naughty boy...or oil...or Kuwait...or whatever other reasons anyone can think of.

Those reasons are OK, but they all miss the essential point:  WMD...that's it all right, Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Specifically, a nuclear weapon...something Saddam has been trying to get his hands on for decades.  He nearly had one before our last foray into his country ruined his efforts.  He has had about seven years to get back to it again.  When he does acquire one...and it is really only a matter of time, he WILL use it...or rather he will give it to someone who will use it in his stead, since he is a chickenshit coward and really is afraid of a Trident sub leveling his country.

Now follow me on this:  Saddam gets a nuclear weapon...Saddam gives the nuke to his brothers the Al Qaeda and they bring it to America!  Some among us might think they would choose the Israelis...but I don't think so.  They actually hate us more (Read: "The Roots of Muslim Rage", by Bernard Lewis in the Atlantic Monthly of 9/90.)...and many in the Middle East who wish us both ill believe if you rid the Middle East of the Great Satan (US) then Israel dies on the vine.

Saddam gets the bomb...LOTS of Americans die.  THAT is why we invade Iraq...destroy his army, destroy his ability to wage war and all of his means to make weapons of mass destruction and finally...we either kill Saddam or bring him here to stand trial.  I like the killing idea myself.

As far as allies...our being a bully...the UN...the French...Germans...any other pantywaist, bedwetters...I don't care what they think or say.  We are in this by ourselves until it is over and we have finally rid the world of these terrorists.  SCREW the Frogs and all of the other erstwhile "allies".  Let them go back to their brie and chardonnay at their nice little cafes along the Champs Elysee and cluck their tongues about those "cowboys" in America.  Hell...leave us alone and we'll make the world safe for them again...like we did in 1918 and 1945.

PAKISTAN !!  It's got to be Pakistan.

Sorry, I meant to say, does anyone believe they DON'T intend to nuke us. Any WMD response by us would be just that-a reponse. I firmly believe that the named countries have in their plans a course that entails attacking us in any means available, because we stand between them and their goals.
My OPINION, FWIW, is that we will be facing China here in the CONUS at some point in the future. China wants it all, and the only way to get it is to take it from us.
Might be a good time to buy some Chinese weapons-would be poetic justice to shoot Chinese troops w/Norincos and Polytechs.  LOL