[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-Aug-02 AT 07:33 PM (EST)]A famous quote - "these are the times that try men's souls".

Our president is apparently on the verge of an all out attack on Iraq, with or without the help of allies.

It might be a quick push over like last time. On the other hand there might be thousands of our troops come back in body bags.

As a former military (you can click on the "My Website" below to view the regiment I served with) I do hope that whatever Americans opinions are concerning this action, that once it starts we all unite behind the president and the effort and give total support for the action and our troops in harms way.

We don't need people saying "I told you so", "I knew we shouldn't have invaded Iraq".

The president is proceeding alone - without any help from our so called allies.

Great. "Dam the torpedos, full steam ahead", to quote another famous leader.

I would go again in a heartbeat, but they wont take 70 year old has beens. I really feel for all those young troops and do not want anything to harm them.

If it happens that there are thousands of American troops returned in body bags, we must all still remain steadfast and supportative of the president and the action. As long as the military is allowed to provide maximum effort we should all stand tall.

 

I'd be more oppinionated on the subject, but I haven't heard much about why we're considering war, nor seen any proof that the reasons are true. It seems that news coverage isn't centering on it yet, and I tend not to watch the news much because it's usually just depressing crap that journalists write about because they can't find anything else, rather than writting stuff that matters. Such as why we're plotting an all out attack on Iraq, and why aren't our allies helping us?

 

war sucks! we americans have very little staying power when it comes to military actions. the middle east is a powder keg waiting for a match. i think its strange how quick some people are to stand up and say lets go kick their butts. i do not believe that the support is strong enough to successfully complete the iraq mission. hell we are not even close to a conclusion in afganistan and now we want to invade iraq. the way to really hit the middle east where it hurts is for americans to learn to conserve and become non dependent on oil from that region. enforce the imigration laws currently on the books and try to run a tighter ship at home. freedom is the most important right we as americans enjoy and it should be defended at all cost, but lets finish one fight before we start a second. iraq is a known quanity we know what to expect from its leader. i think that we under estimate the degree that this fanatic will go to maintain control. the wild card in this deal is how far will iraq go to defend itself. what if the scud missiles that landed in israel had been nuclear. what response do you think would have come in return... non nuclear i don't think so. we should look at the gulf war and learn a good lesson.

ps. thanks for asking questions that make people think.
i served my time with us army from 83-86 serving in the 82d abn division. i value my freedom and would serve again if needed, but we need to finish what we are involved in with afganistan first.

 

This is a difficult question to answer. No one stepped in to prevent Hitler until it was too late. Is Saddam another Hitler? Is the threat of nuclear and biological weapons less than that of the blitzkrieg (sp??) and mass murder/euthanasia? I don't know because it is a threat and not action. We didn't go to war with the Soviet Union based on threat did we?

It seems that we, as a nation, have been our best when we have been forced to step in "after the fact". This might be considered as misfortuntate or a lack of forsight. But in this, I must say, that we ARE a peace loving country forced to action only when provoked by devastating events such as Pearl Harbor or Sept. 11. Maybe we should let nature take its course.

In my opinion, waging war without popular opinion or support of our allies is only setting ourselves up for failure and domestic/economic disaster. Let us stick with democracy. Let the people decide. Let the premise of this country and its consitution steer its course.

I have no doubt America will prevail.

For those doubters, this isn't the first time that the United States of America has faced such questions. Faith in the system that protects us is our best protection. If you disagree, vote! My vote will be to keep America as is.

I have full faith that our military would provide a decisive victory, but would the people stand behind it. This is a nation "For the people and by the poeple" and we must remeber that no matter what the circumstance.

 

teschwab - yes, war sucks.

Most everything you wrote was said back in 1939. Many people in America were pacifist and kept saying "Let Europe handle their own problems". "Its not Americas war".

So conditions got worse and worse untill Pearl Harbor and WWII started.

We do not need to let some two bit jerk build up a mighty army to attack the rest of the world.

 

Let's hurry up and do it, I get out of the Marines in eight months. Hey Greywolf, can ya give me a ride over there on that big boat your boss has?

 

This is a tough issue!! One side of me says to let them deal with their own probs. and maybe they`ll kill each other off. The other side says, Let`s go kick some a$$. IF we do go and AMERICAN BLOOD is shed, I say hang OLD GLORY up over there and make it another state!!! Then it will be our own oil!! Come On!! But, there`s too much politics going on for that!!
`82 F-250 Custom** 4x4 ** 351W ** 39.5--15x16.5** SS- TSL`s ** 6" Lift ** Granny 4-speed**** If you can`t run with the BIG DOGS , stay on the porch!!!

 

i agree that some aspects correlate with the second world war. consider the fact that we alone did not win the war in europe and it took an atomic explosion to bring the japanese to the surrender table. the important aspect to remember is that we were the only one with a nuclear capabiity. today that is not true and nuclear deterrence only works with an opponent that values life and would like to survive the conflict. what if iraq does have the capability to deliver any such weapon. where do you think it will be directed. what type of response do you think will come in return. the ties that we have with israel will bring us to there defense. now do we have just a conflict with iraq or will it develope into a regional conflict involving many countries. how better a way to lift a sagging economy than say a little war. the sagging economy that im speaking of is not ours, but a large country that was once our cold war enemy. where does russia play into this deal. will they seat quietly in their seat or will they find a way to profit. we have other ways to correct the problem of s.h and our government should exhaust every resource before we step one foot in iraq. its good to exchange ideas isnt freedom great.

 

I have a feeling something will happen this winter. I know of a couple Marines who were called back into service 1 yr after their EAS. They still had inactive time on their contract (8yrs) I never heard of this happening since I was in 93-2000

 

Think it over. Saddam won't make the same mistake of an open armored conflict, he knows how that turns out, he can't win. He will hide in the cities, force tremendous civilian casulties. He is not above killing his own people just for a CNN photo opp. The Arab allies we have will distance themselves from the U.S. and some will become enemies. Unless we have specific knowledge that he is planning an attack on U.S. personel, or assets, or is supplying money shelter, ect. don't go to war directly. Keep his head down plinking at his assets, those new Russian nuke plants, flatten them. Set off an EMP weapon, turn his lights off, let his refineries grind to a stop. If there is direct evidence, and not some Bay of Tonkin Resolution type BS, that he is planning, supporting directly or through proxies an attack on the U.S. do not wait, pre emptive strike. Do not mess around, use all US weapons at our disposal. All of them, nuclear included. Flatten, incinerate, obliterate and or infect his weapons and troops wherever they are, cities or not, civilian casulties or not, allies like it or not. Finish it or don't get in the fight. A lot to think over.

 

Oneof6 - you are speaking my kind of language. Go to win or do not go.

 

those of you who listen to Rush have probably heard this already but i think its a great point. ill do my best to summerize.


do you know why the saudi's, the arabs(pick a country), OPEC and most of the rest of our "allies" dont want us to go into iraq......OIL! When we go in there and oust saddam, in effect, we'll have control over the biggest oil reserve on the planet and we wont need to buy oil from OPEC. the rest of our "allies" fear this also. if we control the worlds largest oil supply, we'll be COMPLEATLY unstoppable. of cource we wouldnt take over the planet but thats what those people think.



im all for war. i want my kids to grow up like i did. i dont want them to live in fear of a madman in control of weapons of mass destruction. during the cold war we had a pretty good idea of what we were up against. not only that but that tricky phrase "mutualy assured destruction" comes to mind. with this maniac, we have neither.

we were spoiled by the swiftness of victory in the first conflict with iraq. if this one involes other countries, it'll take a while but thats no reason for us to question the mission. personaly i think once we comit to going in....our "friends" in Europe will fall in line. remember......they dont want us to control all that oil!

 

I think we have closer problems to home than Iraq.

Taken from Newsmax.com

The Unguarded Flank
Francisco José Moreno and Alejandro Eggers Moreno
Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2002

A basic requirement of war is to secure one's flanks. While engaging the enemy at the "front," one's sides and rear become vulnerable. This vital military principle is as important today as it has ever been.

As the U.S. battles terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines and at home, frets about China, Iran and the Middle East, keeps North Korea in check and prepares for a potential battle with Iraq, it is leaving its southern flank – Latin America – virtually unattended.

Crisis seems endemic to Latin America, so it is somewhat understandable that under present world conditions America has paid so little attention to what is going on down there. This is unfortunate, and dangerous, because there is a tidal wave of change sweeping the area that threatens American political influence and economic interests, and that, if not checked, will drag in the U.S. militarily.

The whole continent is in turmoil.

Bolivia is turning away from American-sponsored anti-drug and free market policies and has just vested considerable political power on a coca grower turned politician.

In Peru the government is suspending the coca eradication program that was one of the few successes of the U.S. war on drugs, and its president has been forced to make a cabinet shift away from free market policies.

In Colombia, where the lines between drug trafficking and warfare have become impossible to disentangle, a new president advocates an all-out attack on well-entrenched guerrillas which, if supported by the U.S., will sooner or later lead to direct American involvement.

Ecuador, highly unstable politically, is beginning to provide the setting for confrontations between Colombian guerrillas and their paramilitary enemies.

Venezuela, America's second largest foreign oil supplier and next-door neighbor to Colombia, went through a failed coup last April and is now on the verge of civil war.

Beyond the Andes, Brazil, the largest economy in the region and unquestionably the most important country in South America, has seen its currency, the real, reach an all-time low against the dollar, its stock market sink to depths that indicate a massive exodus of investors, the outlook for its future downgraded by Moody's with the accompanying fear that it might follow Argentina into default, and the surge in opinion polls of two leftist presidential candidates in the forthcoming October election.

Argentina, at the southern end of the continent, appears to be unraveling entirely and taking neighboring Uruguay down with it.

Any one of these crises by itself, with the exception of Brazil's, would not necessarily ring alarm bells. All of them, however, are occurring simultaneously. They share the same causes and they are moving in the same anti-American, anti–free market direction.

Even more importantly, modern technology allows their chief instigators to easily link up with groups and movements in other parts of the world that share similar anti-Western views. This deserves much more attention than it has been given.

The present turmoil in Latin America has resulted primarily from the measures mandated by the United States, directly and through international agencies, that gave a free rein to predatory investment without regard for their effects on the real economy, on social stability, or on their inevitable political blowback.

The architects of this policy, which was uncritically adopted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, acted more as hawkers for financial interests than as statesmen or responsible advocates of market economics; they didn't heed Milton Friedman's warning that "there is an intimate connection between economics and politics."

This imposition has decimated the flourishing middle classes of Argentina and Venezuela, threatens that of Uruguay and has thwarted the growth of middle classes in the rest of region.

Ultimately, the equation is a simple one. The United States, with multiple commitments and vast but limited resources, needs allies in other countries to keep those countries politically friendly and economically engaged. It is the middle classes of those countries, as they grow and prosper, that increasingly share American values and interests, and serve as reliable allies. Weakening this middle class jeopardizes U.S. security.

What made Latin American a dependable partner during the Cold War were the anti-communist and pro-American feelings of its middle class. The opposition of the professional and local business people is what kept the area from responding, despite pressing internal problems, to leftist anti-Americanism or to Che Guevara's call for a regional insurrection.

The United States, in turn, did not force them to structure their economies for the benefit of international banking interests and a handful of local individuals.

If the recent decision to bail out Uruguay with a bridge loan of $1.5 billion and the conciliatory remarks of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill concerning Brazil are simply window-dressing measures, if they do not signal a willingness to recapture some of the former wisdom and flexibility of American policy for Latin America, the U.S. may find its southern flank under attack.

Francisco José Moreno, Ph.D., is President of the Center for Strategic Assessments, Agoura, Calif.; former Vice-President for Latin America of Philip Morris International; former Chairman of the Political Science Department, New York University; Former Lecturer of Economics, UC Berkeley. He has written three books and over 30 academic articles.

Alejandro Eggers Moreno is Vice-President of the Center for Strategic Assessments, Agoura, Calif.

E-mail: censtas(No Email Addresses In Posts!)
Fax: 818- 991-9848

 

Based on what we know now - NO! Let's not get sucked into wasting our assets in a no win situation. Does anyone really believe that it will stop with Iraq?
Dono

 

War Sucks! A madman with a nuclear weapon who's willing to use it sucks even more. So we're stuck between a rock and a very hard place.

Oil and money, on both sides. We need oil from Saudi Arabia, but they need our money even more. Without there oil and our money and culture, the Saudis would still be a bunch of nomads wondering there desert and fighting with each other just like they were 1000 years ago. Now they are just a much of rich nomads that love our money and our western life style (even though in public they condemn it). The Saudis don't want us attacking Iraq because it's the second largest oil reserve in the world. If we attack Iraq and turn it into New Texas, we won't need the Saudis anymore, and they know it. But even if we don't attack Iraq, we can still get our oil from other sources, Russia and Alaska for example. The only hitch with the other sources are they need to be developed and of course, politics.

Our so called "European allies" are a bunch of limp wrested perverts that are living on the past glory of their old dead empires. If it wasn't for America and it's youth, Europe wouldn't even exist right now. Every time those idiots get in a mess, we help them out. But where are they when we need their help? Maybe if Saddam drop a little calling card on their front door step the same way Bin Laden dropped one on ours, they would pull their heads out of their asses and wake up. In the mean time, them.

The UN? The United Nothing is just that, nothing. Those tired, worn out communists holes are still pissed that the Soviet Union collapsed and are still blaming us for it, as they should. But they can go themselves are far as I concerned. They spin their wheels trying to figure new ways to steal our sovereignty and squeeze more money out of us. What do you think they are doing at that waste of time "Earth Summit" down in South Africa right now? "Blame America first, second and third summit" is what it should be called. Why should we get their permission to protect ourselves from a madman?

I think the president need to make the case. So far he has not. And with Congress getting ready to come back to capital hill to work on new ways of limiting our freedoms and stealing our money, the president going to have an even harder time making the case. And of course whose side do you think the media is on? So George Bush has to drown out the liberals in congress that get all the media attention and make the case for an attack on Iraq.