A second unnessary war

[merryman]

The war is so unnecessary!!



The peace/anti war marchers

The elitests/liberal media opinions

Some nations protest, and manipulate the

Anti-ameican elements in the UN----

All trying influence the actions of the USA in dealing with Iraq



So terribly unfortunately, in 1991, President Bush 1, failed to follow what he knew to be the correct course and refrained from going on to Bagdad to destroy sddam and his government.



Had he ignored the peace groups with their silly mushyheaded thinking and arguments, and had he ignored the elitest media and intellectuals with their blatantly dishonest arguments (they KNOW the falsity of their positions) and had he disregarded the fraudulent positions of those governments that either had something to hide, something to gain by continuing Saddam in power, and those where were simply anti- America, and destroyed saddam and his government, non of what we are haveing to do now would have been necessary.



Thank god Bush 2, understands this and is going ahead with this distastfull, sad and costly, but oh so necessary completion of what we started in 1991.

I would bet that Bush 1,s greatest regret is that he did not ignor all the goofy thinking of the peace group and all the dishonest elitest and self serving other governments and done the job he knew needed to be done---------so much for paying attention to such groups-----especially the anti-American UN, and the idiot peace groups who are seemingly unable to exercise real thought process.



As Churchill said after WW ll, it was caused ONLY because all those peace groups, elitest, intellectual jackasses and governments with something to gain, produced enough of just the kind of pressures we are seeing now, to make taking Hitler out in the early-mid 1930's politically impossible. He and others, both in England and this country were vilified terribly for being warmongers-----these idiots were the best allies hitler could have hoped for; THEY made it possible for him to become so strong that defeating him in WW ll was a terrible effort and enormous costly in resources and loss of life.

If we listened to these groups now, the danger is just short of certain, that in a few years we would find the present equvalent of WW ll again necessary.



Thank God for George W. Bush, and his strength of character to go ahead with what he knows to be right. I shudder to think what a mess we would be in if Al Gore were in the White house.



Vaughn

 

[BNH4221]

Yes Vaughn, I totally agree with you.

If any of the "Free Thinkers" and "Educated Ones" don't think that this is just like 1939 and the League of Nations / Nevelle Chaimberlain fiasco then they are sadly mistaken.

As an aside, if I remember correctly Bush 1 was under a UNITED NATIONS mandate to ONLY remove Saddam from Kuwait. That is why the Iraqi's were not pursued into Bagdhad and crushed. The UN tied our hands.



Thank God it won't happen again.



My humble opinion? Tell the U. N. to pack it's trash and screw. Get them out of New York and the USA. Oh, and they can take the Statue of Liberty with them. Don't want it anymore.



Steve

 

[illflem]

There hasn't been one US president since 1945 who has followed the UN's recommendations on waging war, GW is nothing special.

I don't feel we should get rid of the UN but they should drop their peacekeeping position since no one listens anyway and just get into the humanitarian side of things. Better to have the UN rebuild the countries the US pillages rather than us.

 

[merryman]

Having the UN rebuild or rehab a nation instead of us??(I don't for a second accept that we pillage any nation-----unless of course you listen to the spin of the likes of Brokaw, Jennings et al. )

Thats like having the feds do something local------only about 40% or OUR money gets wasted cycling it through DC. Its probably a similiar % of mainly our money that would be wasted by sending it through the UN.

My vote would be for the US to contribute exactly the same amount of money each year as every other member who has any kind of voice or vote there.



Vaughn

 

[Wayno]

There was a PBS special on the local PBS TV station yesterday(Sunday) about this . I watch a little of it and if I remember right C. Powell said the reason the first Bush didn't go all the way to Baghdad was because the US only want to get Irag out of Kuwait and they didn't want to loose no more men than they had to . It was also said that Clinton also got the troops ready to invade Irag but he couldn't get the UN approval to the invasion so he back'd off . They will probably run that special again on the PBS station .

 

[Champane Flight]

In summing it up?

In summing it up. Do you really think Bush went the extra mile in diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq? Or was he bent on invading from the beginning? I think if you would be serious about convincing the world of the need for war, you would give the world more than six months time. I know, 12 years is a long time of non-compliance, but we have other countries (including ourselves) in non-compliance of UN resolutions for much longer periods of time. I think the case for war was weak, I know much of the American public believes the administration. I always look at things at more than face value. I have been lied to more than once by my government. It does not matter what side of the isle it comes from, I will question it. And when it comes to war? It had better be good!



It is hard to make a case for the peaceful disarming when you have massed 250,000 troops on a border. I think more could have been done to wards a peaceful solution. I do think we as a nation should examine things a little closer before excepting our leaders word on matters of war. It is too late now, we have troops within 50 miles of Baghdad. We have to back him and our troops.



But, who is next? N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi? Do we ask the UN again? Or do we just mass troops and ask the UN as a formality or pretense for war? There are many countries with ties to AlQueda or evil regimes in charge, how many can we afford to liberate? How many US troops can we afford to lose to liberate peoples that cannot or will not do it for themselves? How many dollars can we afford to spend on our giant war machine so that all the world will respect us?



Protesting the war now is like going in your pants, you get a warm feeling for a short period of time, then it just gets cold and stinky and no body will come close to you. There is a influx of patriotism in the US right now, I say good for them, It is good to see. But, I also see protesters out there getting out of hand. They have the right for peaceful demonstrations, anyone has the right to speak out, this is what we as Americans fought for. What also scares me is the violent content of some of the pro-war backers, it is splitting the nation up at a time when we should be together, if not in opinion, at least in support for our troops. May our POWs have angels above, and may our troops hurry home safe!

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by illflem

. Better to have the UN rebuild the countries the US pillages rather than us.

Didn't expect that kind of trash from you, illflem.

 

[sdalton]

The U. N. was a good idea, but when it just becomes a debating power and an extention of that countries politics and financial interests, then the U. N. has rendered itself useless and irrelevent.



ILLFLEM, and C. F. -



Sled Puller- why has ILLFLEMS posts surprised you. He has hinted at his feelings several times. He is just a little more hidden in the closet that the other one or two here.

 

[sdalton]

My thoughts on taking over Bagdad is thus; First we get close in, with unmanned tanks and trucks. Let them lob a few Chemical weapons at us. Then take the gloves off. Drop millions of fliers telling every person in bagdad to leave or surrender within24 hours. Then carpet bomb or MOAB the entire city. Let the oil from that country rebuild another city, in a different place. Let the oil from their country finance the military costs. Then never, I mean never, let the other dictators of the world forget what could happen, if they ever decide to spread terror again. Also, ditch the U. N. forever, and start a seperate unifying agency to protect the world.

 

[BNH4221]

Posted by C. F. :

Do you really think Bush went the extra mile in diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq?



Um, yes. As even you stated, 12 years of diplomacy, cajoling, threats and carrot and stick approach (think Oil for Food program) didn't produce any tangible results.

I think the question is how long do we, as a world community, let Saddam build a WMD program, kill and maim his own people, (at last count over 200,000 Iraqi citizens), and sponsor terrorist groups while we stand by and pass UN resolution after resolution condemning him? At some point talk is over and action must be taken to protect the world from people like him.

What damage would Hitler have done if the US, Britain and other allies listened to the League of Nations and attempt to pacify and contain him? I shudder to think.

Is Saddam that far off? I for one think not. Had we accomplished his removal 12 years ago, none of this would be necessary. Thanks again United Nations.

Hey, no one in their right mind wants war. But this time, the alternatives are even uglier.



Steve

 

[Hammerhead]

Re: In summing it up?

[

Protesting the war now is like going in your pants, you get a warm feeling for a short period of time, then it just gets cold and stinky and no body will come close to you. There is a influx of patriotism in the US right now, I say good for them, It is good to see. But, I also see protesters out there getting out of hand. They have the right for peaceful demonstrations, anyone has the right to speak out, this is what we as Americans fought for. What also scares me is the violent content of some of the pro-war backers, it is splitting the nation up at a time when we should be together, if not in opinion, at least in support for our troops. May our POWs have angels above, and may our troops hurry home safe! [/B][/QUOTE]



Well said CF. After reading your posts on several of these topics I have to admit that there are some good points that you include in them. I still disagree with most of your philosophy but thats what debate is all about

 

[merryman]

Yup, we should go the extra mile and, then a little to avoid violence;

Just about what Chamberlain said in 1938. Lets just keep netoitiating----thousands of peace lovers were certain that we could deal with Hitler by peaceful means----untill Hitler (nw saddam) gets so strong that it takes a WWll where we lost as many as 4000+ men in ONE day (normandy invasioncost us about 4900 men) to dislodge them.

Yup, CF, we could keep on didling around with a UN vote that france was going to block whatever we did, and in another couple years (after all saddam has ONLY had 12 years), he could have his nuclear weapons and tell us to stick it in our ear or he would plop one in the middle of (fill in the city). The supprise for saddam is that he was sure his buddies in france and germany and russia could not stall us off long enough for him to complete his preparations to dominate the entire region----then who knows where his dreams would lead him.



Yup, keep our heads buried in the sand--pretending the UN had something real to offer--life feels warmer and fuzzier that way----dealing with reality can get tough and down right mean sometimes, but you know what? sometimes its nothing short of necessary.



Vaughn

 

[Boomer II]

Re: In summing it up?

Originally posted by Champane Flight



It is hard to make a case for the peaceful disarming when you have massed 250,000 troops on a border.

As if Saddam would have listened or even allowed inspectors in if he had not felt the heat being applied by the US. If the world had hung tough we might have avoided a war, but France, Russia, Germany and our own appeasers sealed that deal.