GEARS

I appreciate your response, as I said I wasn't trying to lead you to a slaughter.

I'm interested in you furthering your position, and telling me what it would take for you to agree to military action. You say the US has other options available to achieve a regime change, and that option has existed for more than a decade. In addition, 3 plots on Suddam's life have failed.

It appears that over the past 12 years we have given time to comply with UN resolutions, given time for attempts on his life to be made. What specifically would have to happen for you to agree with war? Would we have to spend another 5 or 10 years? Would 3 more unsuccessful attempts on Suddam's life be sufficient?

In short, tell me your exact timetable....

 

Great reading for a Sunday morning........now on to more important matters........Beer and Nascar!

 

I think I'll take HOOTERS AIR to ATLANTA order a beer and watch the race....

 

01 XLT Sport,

I agree with most of what you say, but I think you are off-base with the Hitler's Germany comparisons to Iraq. He had an alliance with Italy and Japan, therefore Germany (by virtue of it's professed allies in war) attacked us first.
I also hope that GW isn't goaded into war simply because he painted himself into a corner that he can't get out of. I still think we have more pride in our history of defending ourselves, then to be pushed into a preemptive strike on Iraq with the purpose of overthowing their current regime and installing a "peace keeping force". I served in Vietnam as an infantryman, although I'm proud of my service and my country and have proven it many times over, I am slightly embarassed by our involvment there in the 60's and 70's. The prevailing thougth, although simplified, was why not fight communism a few miles off our shores in Cuba rather than pick a fight halfway across the world. That thought in mind, why not pick a fight with Israel who has broken more UN resolutions than most of the rest of the world (Iraq included) combined.
BTW, please don't think I'm advocating war again Israel, just using this as an example.

Just my opinion, I value it just like I respect yours and Gears, and others who have posted here.

this is a great place to exchange ideas like these and be able to respond to other's thoughts on the subject, keeping in mind that the common ground that brought us together is F-150's, not our political beliefs.

 

serotta

Despite your doubts about our purpose in Vietnam, I am very thankful that you fulfilled your duty to serve. It's people like you that make our democracy work. Unfortunately, people think that it's morons like Clinton (not commenting on his presidency or acts while in office) that ran from the draft. Those people don't understand that we live in a democracy where we elect our leaders. After that, the personal choices stop. If our elected officials enter into war, then you've got to go, no time for evaluating the "correctness" of this war. If every soldier was allowed to think for himself and decide whether or not to participate, we would have never won any war.

As as far as winning a war, in my opinion we won Vietnam militarily, when you compare dead bodies to dead bodies. Unfortunately, public opinion and politics lost the war. I think you should be proud (as I'm sure you are) of how your military came in and kicked a$$.

 

Have to agree with you for the most part. I'm not proud of the way the military was treated like a "chained dog". Let the "dog" off the leash to attack Vietnamese positions, then chain the "dog" again and let the enemy secure it's position, lick it's wounds, and re-establish it's lines. Then unleach the "dog" again.... etc., etc. It brings to mind the old quote I know you've heard before. "If you're gonna carry a gun, be prepared to use it, otherwise don't carry the d___ gun!"
If we go into Iraq, ( let me be clear, I don't think we should) but if we go into Iraq, then we should do so with the intent to clean the country from one end to the other to be sure we get the "cancer" GW talks of. I just hope it doesn't start something way bigger than the world can handle.
This part of the world has been fighting much longer than we've been in existence. There's no reason to think we can stop it now. It is far deeper than oil or terrorism or territory. It's religion and cultures and I've never seen a fight, big or little about religion or cultures that had a winner in that region of the world.

 

Serotta:

Excellent post and I value your opinions. You give good logical and moral reasons for you position and I have to and do respect that.

First let me say, to this day, nothing pisses me off more then how some Americans treated returning servicemen from Vietnam. Regardless of what happen over there and what the underlining reasons were the men and women that went there and fought there, in my opinion, are some of the bravest people I could only wish to have close ties to.

You, my friend have my utmost respect and I thank you for your service to our country. We may disagree on the current situation of what should be done but I do not have a problem with that and can respect your position on the matter.

Here is my position. I think President Bush has, most likely, the toughest decision to make. More so then any president in our history, including the “correct” decision to drop the nuclear bombs in Japan which saved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers.

Even though I do agree with President Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq it is done so thinking hard and long about the complete situation, at least from the information I could gather.

As you say any war that has to do with religion is going to be a tough war to fight. When it comes to religion it is the most passionate war that could be fought. Both sides will have moral values that will excel them to continue as long as it may take.

However, I do not, in my opinion, believe this war to be over religion. The reason I believe that is there are many Moslems living here in America from Iraq and other Middle Eastern Countries that agree with what America is about to do and support our effort to do so.

I truly believe that if this was about religion, or if the perception was this war was to do with religion we would not have any Middle Eastern Countries willing to back us or help us in any way. Though Saddam has tried to sale this war about religion he has failed because very few believe it.

For to many years America has stayed away and not really tried to deal with the terriost problem. This is not only because of Clinton but other republican presidents as well. I think Clinton was the weakest link after the other presidents basically failed to deal with it.

Now though other presidents failed to deal with it they never really gave an ultimatum to terriost or terriost supporting countries as did Clinton. Problem with Clinton is he never really backed up any of his ultimatum’s so it made America look weak and unwilling to deal with terriost or terriost supporting countries, like someone had mentioned before “kill 10 or so Americans and they will leave”

I do believe there are links between Saddam and other terriost groups that wish to cause harm to America and its citizens. I do believe that any opportunity that Saddam has to sale and provide these terriost with weapons of mass destruction he will do so.

It is for this reason I believe it to be a situation of “kill or be killed”. I think President Bush stated it correctly when he said “the price of no action will be higher then the price of action”

I believe the reason countries like France and Germany do not support us is due to there money interest with Iraq. Furthermore, they are at very little risk for any terriost attacks themselves because they are not big players in the world as America and Britain is.

I look at it like this. You have high crime in the inner cities but yet a few miles away in the suburbs you have much less. People in the suburbs don’t have much interest in what is happening in the inner cities to curb crime since it in not in “their neighborhood” and sometimes the people in the suburbs will disagree with how police forces are handling the crime situation in the inner cities even though many in the inner cities may want that type of action from the police force.

I think Iraq should have been dealt with many years ago and that 10 plus years has been to long. With that said I believe it is well overdue for the action we are about to take.

 

WELL SAID!

I just don't agree with it all, for I have seen war, and it is not the tool we perceive it to be.
BUT, I will always defend and respect your right to believe in it. I don't think you can beat ideals into submission, then expect respect, you will only reap fear and loathing. And someday, as Andy Griffith's buddy (Gomer) says, "That dog'll bite chu!" (or was that from some joke about a Georgia Bulldog and a football game?) I might add, I also respect the Canadian view (without the name calling).

Hell, looks like I'm a fence sitter. I really ain't, but everyone, even Saddam deserves a point of view.

Now, it's time for a beer, TV, and bed. Let's see, the kids are in bed, wonder what the wife's doing???????? Hummmmm!!!!! or maybe

 

one more time..

First off i would like to offer an appology to 01 XLT
I think I crossed the line by calling him retarded.


This is a very serious moment in our history, many things are at stake, the least of which are some idiots in Iraq. People must really realise the gravity of the situation. As a result I get a little hot under the collar when someone starts shooting his mouth off
without having fully thought out things due to their own passion over this topic.

The United States of America will certainly pummel Iraq, easily, and probably with relatively little direct loss of innocent life. But this would be the easy part. But when you pound a people onto the preindustrial age( as GW has stated) you cause great hardship to millions of innocent who had zero say in who their leader is what he does.

Also, in my opinion while the Iraqi regime IS a repressive one, that is no cause for concern. Sadaam has always been highly secular. He has less on common with Bin Laden than GW does. In Iraq militant/extremist followers of Islam are very effectively silenced. The Islam practiced in Iraq is quite moderate when compared to that in US allied counties such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
They are moslem however none the less. And when things get very bad for those in moslem countries, history has taught us that extremism and fanatasism are the result. When these peple have nothing and are repressed the fanatics only iincrease in numbers and strength.

To go into Iraq would punish(unfairly IMO) a progressive people and economy. The result would likely be similar to what happened in Iran. After the whole fiasco with the Shaw and the US.

This would be a war the US or anyone for that matter could never win. The more you beat on them, the more their numbers increase, the the more the hatred builds. Just as Few Isrealis feels safe (due to the acts of their own govt) I think we would be entering an era where Americans and american interests everywhere will be in real danger, likely for generations.


I'm gonna go have a kit kat now, be back later...

 

Okay GEARS, I've listened to you and your opinions throughout this post, but this is the last straw. I've had it, I'm fed up with it. You're eating a Kit Kat, and it's going to force me to go to the store and buy some. Those are the kind of comments that you should keep to yourself. Don't you have the common decency to realize that some of us might be fighting a weight problem and are trying to break away from snack foods, sweets, high volume meals, etc. BUT NO, you flaunt it, you have me salivating on the keyboard, I can barely finish this post and will have to run to the grocery store and buy a box of Kit Kats. Notice I said Box, not one bar. A junkie can't control himself, sure I can go to support groups (KKA) and the likes. I can call a friend, and they can try to talk me down...... But it won't work, you and I know it.

See what you've started, I hope you're happy! I need !

 

QUOTE:

“As a result I get a little hot under the collar when someone starts shooting his mouth off
without having fully thought out things due to their own passion over this topic.”

Though I have passion over the subject I have come no where near shooting off my mouth without having fully thinking it out. If you read my post and comprehend them, which is quite easy to do then you would have to agree. I lay out my reasoning for my stand on this situation very logically.

Now your last post brings up many good points. However, I would respectfully disagree. I don’t disagree that your points are valid they are very valid in my opinion. It basically comes down to the strongest will survive.

I would equate what you said in your post as to being afraid of the bully (school bully) and only taking little steps to try and control the bully but not bring the bully into submission. Into submission would mean to follow the rules of the school.

It is easy for people to look the other way when the bully continues to threaten others, and then has more people in his little gang. Like you mentioned about Moslems and the fanatics among them. Sure it is easier to just give the bully the milk money and then be on your way not worrying about any physical pain.

When standing up to the bully there will most likely be some pain, it’s a part of “overthrowing him” if you will. Once you have stood up to the bully once, twice or more he will eventually back down if enough force is used and he knows you’re not afraid to use it.

We cannot be scared into just ignoring the situation for when you ignore a problem it does NOT go away it simple gets bigger and more complicated.

The people of Iraq will be better off in the long run. Yes the people of Iraq are responsible for their government’s action just as the people in America are. If the people in Iraq wanted change they could force change by an uprising. Since they are not strong enough either mentally or physically to stand up to the challenge someone else has to do it. You will find after the war that many of the Iraq people will welcome the Americans and British for freeing them of an extremely repressive regime. More so because they did not have the power, know how, strength or courage to do so for themselves.

About the comment that Saddam has less in common with Bin Laden then President Bush does, well that makes absolutely no sense at all. Saddam and Bin Laden could be brothers. They try to rule people by TERROR, those that don’t follow their ways are killed brutally with chemicals and other nasty weapons.

President Bush is the good guy, and Saddam and Bin Laden are the EVIL and BAD guys. It is a scary time in our history, but we cannot let FEAR dictate how we should handle the situation.

An excellent quote:

“We have nothing to FEAR but FEAR itself”.

When we FEAR “fear” it makes us weak and paralyzes people into doing nothing more then hiding in a closet and “pretending” everything is going to be ok. It is NOT going to be ok so long as we let people like Saddam supply terriost with weapons that could and will kill hundreds of thousands of American’s.

We are not starting the war, the war began on Sept. 11, 2001. Now Saddam may not have been the guy to set the plans up or supply people but, in my opinion, he is a player in it and one that WILL be dealt with.

 

"" The people of Iraq will be better off in the long run. Yes the people of Iraq are responsible for their government’s action just as the people in America are. ""







My friend,

I respectfully disagree with the above statement for the following reasons:

Iraq is a dictatorship, America is a democracy.

True, one could argue that the Iraqi people could get organized and just overthrow their government, but this is much easier said than done.

I can tell you that the Majority of the Iraqi populace are good people, and they have been victimized and mistreated, and abused for a long time.

Have you ever seen a dog that's been beaten and abused by their owner? Eventually the animal just cowers in the corner, and pees itself at the mere sight of any stimuli.

Not the best example here, but I know you can appreciate the gravity of the matter.

Saddam Hussein has spies and snitches all over Iraq.
I pity the poor sumbitch who even thinks about overthrowing the government out loud.

The consequence is an instant death sentence.

While I agree with the jist of your statement that the Iraqi people will be better off, I don't think it's fair to hold the Iraqi people responsible for their situation.
They are victims, and unfortunately, they didn't have a choice in the matter.

Not only will the Iraqi people be better off, they will welcome the change, and thank those who liberate them.

Of course when you see them get interviewed on TV, they will say "oh, GW is evil, and Saddam is great"
They know if they say otherwise, they will receive a biatch-slapping of a lifetime.

I agree it's time to take action and remove him by force. (with or without UN support)

Pay now or pay later, I think the price we pay at a later date could be more than we bargained for.

Habibi

 

You hit the nail on the head with that one. How else can you explain the "vote" for Suddam. Everyone voted for him, or where killed. That makes the choice very easy If and when George Jr finishes up what his daddy started, I would not be surprised to see the people of Iraq revolt and turn on their govermen.

Exactly

And as you said Habibi, I think it would be better to deal with Saddam now, rather than later

 

Habibi:

I completely agree with your post. I did not come across as I had wished to. Yes, see there even I can admit to a mistake… (LOL).

I completely understand that the people of Iraq are basically helpless in their situation. I further agree that they should not be held accountable by us or anyone else for Saddam’s actions.

Some seem to think that by America going in their to liberate the people of Iraq that we, America, do not care about the people of Iraq, do not care how many “innocent” ones are killed or injured.

The fact of the matter is the people of Iraq will be much better off after America and British have liberated them. There life styles will improve, their economy will improve, their well being will improve.

I am willing to bet, when it goes down and there are hundreds of American and British troops in Baghdad and the people of Iraq see them they will not be fighting the American and British, but rather right by there side, if they can be, and helping to give Saddam’s followers a good ol’ @ss whooping they have deserved.

Good to see you again my good friend…

 

OK OK OK ,

I was going to stay out of this one but the Kit Kat comment got me.

Everyone is hashing out the deal with the U.N. , we shouldn't invade because we don't have approval or we should because it's our right to protect ourselves . I am not sitting on the fence and I will reserve my position on that.

This committee has members that have personal interests at stake which might be lost in event of a war. That clouds the real issues and makes it's an extremely biased debate. To the point of indecision. There is only person one with veto power and it seems that person has heavy ties and something to lose. Let's face it , we are trying to manage the world by consensus.

Nothing great has ever been accomplished by consensus. It takes a single person to accomplish great things. I don't think Einstein's theory of relativity was done by consensus or the purchase of Alaska. These are just examples to show a point. I have been an electronic designer for many years and I worked at companies that would try the consensus path but it never worked , I repeat , never worked. Don't get me wrong . There is nothing wrong with getting input and constructive criticism but if you can't agree on a critcal point then you must put your a$$ on the line to make a tough decision. I am glad no one really had veto power otherwise there would have been great financial losses.

The real thing wrong with the U.N. is it has only one committee with only one person that has veto power.

Let's imagine if there was no veto power. There would be very few fence sitters and as it stands now we would have the majority vote for military action.