Quoted:
I'm baffled.  The only explanation I can think of is that the anti-war peaceknick liberals have infected this country to the core, to the point where even a supposedly conservative Republican administration doesn't want to go to total war.

Look, as soon as 9/11 happened, we should have declared war on Iraq, Iran and Syria, mobilized the entire nation to conquer, occupy, pacify, and democratize those 3 countries.

The fact that we appear to be "waffling" over Iraq is an outrage to me.  Every day I think about what happened to my country on 9/11 and it makes me sad of course for all of my fellow Americans but more than ever it makes me ANGRY at our enemy.  Our enemy, the entire Muslim world in general.  Our enemy, the "extremist" Islam, which is actually just a PC notion.  All of Islam is generally extremist.  They all hate our guts, they hate what we stand for.  They hate Western Civilization in general.  Make no mistake, this is a gigantic clash between two civilizations, the primitive Muslim world versus modern Western Civilization.  There can only be one path to peace in the future, and that is victory achieved through forcing OUR will onto our enemies, by using power and strength.

Anyway, one too many cups of coffee today :)

Quoted:


So given that Bush has stated this himself, what does that suggest to you??

Keep the Faith Guys. Its commin.

Ben

WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - American warplanes destroyed two Iraqi air
defense targets in Iarq's southern "no-fly" zone on Thursday in the second such
raid this week after Western jets were fired on, the U.S. military said.

The U.S. Central Command based in Tampa, Florida, said the jets dropped
precision-guided weapons on an anti-aircraft missile system and a missile
control center in southern Iraq at approximately 1:15 a.m. Thursday Iraq time
(2115 GMT on Wednesday).

All aircraft departed the target areas safely, Central Command said. It was the
second time this week that U.S. fighters struck targets in the zone in the
latest of a long series of tit-for-tat exchanges in northern and southern
no-fly zones of Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War.

The strikes came as Iraq and the United Nations continued discussions over the
possible return of U.N. weapons inspectors to that country.

But speculation has grown in recent months about possible U.S. plans for a
future military invasion of Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein from power.
Washington says Saddam is actively trying to make chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons.

Senior U.S. defense officials have said privately that such an attack could
take as many as 500,000 U.S. troops and hundreds of warplanes, and have hinted
that any such move is not imminent while Washington is concentrating on the war
on terrorism in Afghanistan. Russia and a number of America's Western allies
have cautioned against such a move.

Army Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the Central Command and responsible for U.S.
military activities in the Gulf and Middle East region, told reporters this
week that he had received no orders to draw up a plan to depose Saddam.

NO FIRM PLANS FOR U.S. ATTACK

President George W. Bush reiterated on Tuesday that the United States had no
firm plans to attack Iraq but said he would inform European leaders during a
visit this week of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein.

"I have no military plans on my desk but I'm looking at all options, closely
with our allies... it's a danger we need to take seriously and we better take
it seriously now," Bush said in a translated interview with German television.

Iraq said on Monday that four people were wounded when U.S. warplanes attacked
civilian targets that day. But Washington said it had launched a raid against a
military air-defense target in the south after a missile was apparently fired
at U.S. and British jets policing the southern zone.

"Aggression by Iraq led to the destruction of two military targets by the
coalition forces charged with enforcing the southern no-fly zone," the Central
Command said of Thursday's strikes.

The release said the attempt to shoot down coalition aircraft was made shortly
before midnight on Wednesday in Iraq and that U.S. warplanes two hours later
struck two pre-determined targets to weaken Iraqi air defenses in the southern
zone.

They were an anti-aircraft missile site near Nasiriyah, about 170 miles 273 kms
southeast of Baghdad, and a military aircraft and missile control center near
Tallil, 170 miles 273 kms south-southeast of the capital.

"Coalition aircraft struck carefully pre-planned targets to neutralize hostile
threats endangering our aircrews," the Central Command statement said. It said
that the missile system had been moved into the no-fly zone in violation of
U.N. Security Council resolutions and was threatening the jets.

U.S. and British jets have been patrolling northern and southern no-fly zones
set up after the Gulf War to protect Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims from attack by
Saddam's military.

Baghdad has refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq since they
pulled out in December 1998, but is currently discussing with the United
Nations the issue of opening the door again to those inspectors.

"I have no military plans on my desk but I'm looking at all options, closely
with our allies... it's a danger we need to take seriously and we better take
it seriously now,"

Quoted:
I'm with you. It looks like Bush is pussing out.

Quoted:
Has anybody heard anything about pre-positioning of equipment? Stockpiling of weapons and fuel, or any of the other usual precursors to a major operation?

I bet you will see action right before the election. Bush II is not going to let the electorate forget about his war

Quoted:

However, if we invade we are going to need Israelis assistance if we like it or not.

Quoted:


However, if we invade we are going to need Israelis assistance if we like it or not.

Quoted:

I've been of the understanding that the U.S. war on terrorism would go in something like this order:  Aghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and then maybe North Korea.  Now it seems as though we may not even go beyond Afghanistan.

 At this point, I'm wondering if we would even seriously respond if one of our cities were nuked.

-kill-9

Quoted:
The U.S. has no way to bring in 10s of thousands of troops into Iraq.  Even an airfield seizure isn't feasible.  Why do you think we dragged our heals when Israel put the screws to the Palestinians?  A ground assault will have to come from the west of Iraq.  We will have to dock in Israel to get organized and deploy armor and troops.  This is just the way I see it.

Quoted:
I would not look forward to the possible enviornmental effects of a nuclear war.  That being said I feel that will be the direction this takes eventually - just as soon as the moslems get one.  I am amazed that Pakistan has not used theirs.  The longer we wait to crush the moslems/Arabs the more nukes they can deliver to US soil.  That is why I think the first one should have been use 9/12.  Now is still the time.  A predetermined list of the order of destruction of the moslem world should be made public.  Next terror attack in US or Israel and they will know which country we are going to obliterate.  Then DO it!  The bastards are right about one thing; we ARE weak.  Our lack of response to their outrageous acts proves it.  If we are no longer wlling to conduct unlimited war, then we have already lost.  We should pick an appropriate moslem target and give them 24hrs to unconditionally surrender.  Upon their failure to do so, nuke them.  Move on to the next enemy country and make the same offer.  Continue until moslem problem is solved either through surrender or total destruction of 1.2 billion of the enemy.

Quoted:
anybody ever hear of the doomsday plan? it was a coldwar plan that stated that if an enemy attacked with nuclear weapons then not only that enemy but all known and potential enemies would be wiped off the face of the earth.

What if reaction in the Islamic world to an American invasion of Iraq starts to destabilize governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan? What if an Islamist attack on the Musharraf government, or even a successful assassination of Musharraf himself, means that we have to go in an stabilize Pakistan and protect or seize its nuclear weapons to keep them out of the hands of al Qaeda? How can we handle destabilization in the Islamic world in the wake of an attack on Iraq if the invasion itself stretches our forces to the limit?

Quoted:
ump45, you're right, that is a good article.  It DOES have a glaring hole in it however.  That is the nuclear option.  It is not difficult for the US to obliterate Iraq, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Sadi Arabia and the other morons there who NEED to be taken down!!  I for one am looking forward to putting an end to all this nonsense and a few 200megaton bombs delivered to the correct cities are the way to accomplish it!

Quoted:

do we even have any 200 megaton weapons?

Quoted:
Ben, your faith in Bush is commendable, but never underestimate the willingness of a politician to reverse course on a dime if he thinks it will help him politically.  I, too, would like to think that Bush acts on principle, but the Farm Bill, steel tarrifs, and his general willingness to support traditionally liberal issues sadly betray that notion.

-kill-9