I was in and out of this site periodically during the holidays, and something made me wonder today, how is it that a politically charged group of guys (such as ourselves) didn't speak or comment on Saddam Hussein's execution.

I'd just arrived at my Mom's house in Louisiana, and had just taken the first bag to my room, when I walked back by the TV and saw on CNN that Hussein had been executed. I told my folks, and they were all stunned. We'd all heard only days before that it would happen within 30 days. They must've meant 30 dog-days.

I did a search, found and read the thread, and I must say strong points were made on both sides. But, the REAL truth is, none of us here really knows what the heck is going on... One side claims liberals are only aware of what they are fed by the media, the other side claims to have the "facts". truth is, we are all fed by the "media" and media spin. Unless you have boots with Iraqi dust on them, you just can't know what it's really like over there.

But, I do have a media based opinion as well. Without intentionally trying to offend anyone- I'll share.

• I think we've done some good there (perceived democracy), I think we've done a lot of bad there (civil war).
  
• I think Saddam was not a real threat to us (strategically), but he was a conveniently potential threat.
  
• I am less concerned about Iraq (2003) than I was North Korea (2003 - Present).
  
• I think our government leaders lied to us, and played up the threat Saddam truly posed.
  
• I believe he was a minimal threat, but we used what we had to go get him. Afterall, someone had to pay for 9/11. I believed what the government said, even though I know they can be liars. It was easy to believe them, especially when the lie had been building for 18 months. In hindsight, we know it was a lie. But, back then- we didn't know, and we trusted our government, and our intelligence agencies. They really made the word "Intelligence" seem like an oxymoron where we our evidence gathering was concerned.
  
• I think it's a conflict of interest to have a sitting VP, be a shareholder in the 'only" company that can do what Haliburton can do. he shoudl either give up the shares, or we should have taken another route to rebuild Iraq, just to avoid the conflict.
  
• Who rebuilt Japan & Germany? Was haliburton around then? let's get those folks back out there...
  
• It's long been a known fact that war stimulates the economy. This war is no different. It stimulated the economy, unfortunately, it only stimulated a few areas.
  
• Like 01XLTSport said, everything in this country is tied to oil. We'll never get off of it, so yes- it may hurt to hear it- others may deny it, but this war was about oil too... just like Desert Storm was. We'd have our foot in North Korea's butt too, if they had vast amounts of oil there.

To call the government "Liars" might be a strong word. But to me, if we had "proof" of these WMD's prior to our invasion, with all the spy satellites, agents, and informants we probably have- (Satellites which can reportedly enable the viewer to count the rivets on a Russian ship from 22,000 miles away), I find it inconceivable we didn't know exactly where to look to find those WMD's once we got in country. Be they under ground, or in some building. That, to me, is proof we were lied to.

We found Saddam in a spider hole, and his body temperature was only 98.6 degrees. We found Manuel Noriega, you mean to tell me we can't find metal bombs that give off radiation? We can't find stockpiles of chemical weapons?

Surely you jest...

There I said it. RockPick, if you fear this thread will go off course as badly as the other one did; shut'er down. But, if we "adults" can keep the debate/discussion civil, without bashing each other for our opinions- then, let the debate begin- no hitting below the belt, and no kidney punches...

 

I couldn't agree more with what you have said.

DITTO!

Tim C.

 

I agree as well Hersh.

BTW...the government lies to us EVERYDAY about something.

 

Jut remember the old addage: "I am here from the government and I am heere to help you..."

Tim C.

 

Being in Iraq? I'm for it.

What we've accomplished there and how we've gone about it, including stated justifications? Still hard to tell.

The handling of North Korea? I think that's the one thing that is unquestionably been handled correctly by the President. China has finally taken NK by the arm and dragged them to 6 party talks. It was a mistake to try to appease them during Clinton's term. They have no interest in keeping their word and have nothing to lose by breaking it. Not when it comes to the United States. Now big brother China, on the other hand, is much more influential in the region than we are, and has the ability to punish NK meaningfully, in ways we don't, if they back out of any agreements. We have no real leverage without NK's neighbors being involved in the talks. We also are in no position to go barreling into NK with 2 of our best allies in the region within missile range of them, and a million+ man army ready to take Seoul within hours of the beginning of hostilities. China wouldn't go for us having that strong of a presence in the region either. All the people that point to NK and say "Why Iraq and not them?" have to be speaking before they truly think, or being difficult because they don't agree with the choices made in regards to Iraq.

 

Dude, don't for a nano-second think North Korea's Army will swarm into South Korea and take it just like talking about it...

Happen, not gonna...

While it's true we might be a little scare of China's Army (We did kick their butts in the Korean war too) our military presense is just as much to keep South Korea from invading North Korea, as it is a deterrent to prevent the North from coming into the south. Believe me, South Korea ROK Army is no joke...

There's a lot more between the DMZ and Seoul and finally Pusan than America's 2nd Infantry Division. (I thought so too, but, this is not the case.)

Believe me when I tell you. I've been there, served there... If they get below the 38th parrallel, they'll be doing good. Just trust me on that one...

We have "appeased" North Korea for 50 years. That didn't just happen on Clinton's watch. The war is not over in Korea, there may not be any shooting, but what we have is a "cease fire", not an end. That's why the pucker factor over there stays around 60%.

 

PS..

The spy satellites we have are not geosynchronous over Iraq. If they know when the satellites are to pass over, and they did, they could make preparations to avoid detection. The only way to be able to come close to finding the truth about WMDs was inspections; and, Iraq was not cooperating with them. If they didn't have the weapons, then why the subterfuge? Did they want to provoke us; or, did they think we didn't have the resolve to do anything? Therefore, did they purposely sow doubt, in an effort to make the West look foolish? There are many more questions that we don't have the answers to. One thing is for sure though. Before we went into Iraq, EVERYONE thought they had the WMD's (Not that WMDs were the only legitimate reason to go back in, after 12 years of cease-fire violations.).

 

Yeah, I saw that on Patriot games, and still wonder how they "knew" when our satellites were coming over, but, didn't know when the SAS were coming to wax their butts.

We have a lot of those satellites. Well, more than just one anyway...

 

I'm fully aware that we only have a cease-fire with NK. The politics of the area were not exactly appeasement until we started trying to pay them off not to develope nukes. THAT is the issue here. NOT allowing them to exist in the first place, as you seem to be alluding to. China is much stronger in the last 50 years than they were during the Korean Conflict. I've read plenty on the region; and, while NK would be in trouble if they made a move on SK in the long term, they would still do a great deal of damage to SK before they were defeated and Seoul would fall quickly. And Kim Jong Il would still likely be nice and safe (and still in power) after the dust clears.


ROK soldiers are badasses. Barefoot PT is for the birds.

 

That's why I used the plural form of the word. Even with Spy satellites, you have to have an idea of what you are looking for and where.

 

You can bicker all day. Have you forgotten though, that we've been saved? The democrats are in control now. Everything will be a-ok now.

I don't think that we are going to be the worlds "bully" any more. I also don't think that we are going the worlds police any more. I believe that domesticly we are about to experiance the next phase. We are about to enter the woosifacation of America. We are all going to learn how to run around with our tail between our legs.

Domesticly, the legitimate people in this country are going to run around scared because the terrorists and thugs are going to be the ones in control. We have laws that only apply to law abiding citizans. I expect foreign policy to be about the same. The world thugs and terrorists will have every one on the run. Intimidation works for them. We've proven that.

Our country doesn't need to initiate confrontation with all of the countries that pose a threat to global interests. Avoiding all confrontation will appear weak and will most certianly be exploited.

I've heard a lot of complaints as of late. I'm not really complaining but I believe that a majority of the voting public has created an interesting scenario.

 

True... One would believe we'd have the satelites looking in the areas where the arms were said to be, once our intelligence know they were there. Long before the war ever started, say, 1991, 92, 93...2000, 2001, 2002, 2003...

*****************************************

It might be considered a "payoff" by giving the NK's energy, but if it reduced the threat from a potential enemy, and didn't require gunshots, I don't see the problem. Unfortunately, we never got to see if that strategy woudl work, so in essence, it failed. But, for years the 6-party talks have failed as well, and now NK "may" have a nuke... I can't say this strategy has been more effective- not when one considers the results. But, regarding reaching an agreement, even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates shook hands at some point.

I never said Seoul wouldn't be damaged. Seoul is well within Artillery range of North Korea's guns, but there's a funny thing about artillery. When you fire it, the enemy (in this case, us and South Korea) knows where it came from. The further they move back, the less damage they'll do to Seoul- and they'd be stupid to stay there and keep shooting.

Their infantry might (emphasis on the woprd might) make it across the 38th parrallel, but their heavy war-waging equipment won't. The infantry can only carry so many bullets, and with no logistics, they'd be captured or killed rather quickly. There will be no amphibious landings, and they aren't gonna drop in Airborne style... No RNK foot soldier has a chance against a buttoned up M-1 Abrams tank, and that's what it would be when they charge across the border, with no equipment. (Yes, South Korea is armed with M-1 tanks, diesel engine powered as opposed to our turbine engines, and 105MM as opposed to our 120mm guns, but- still an M-1).

Even if they could make it over with tanks, their tanks are no match for the M-1 Abrams. Ask those tank guys from Iraq's Army in their T-62, T-72 and T-80's. (Whoops, you can't- they're dead.) In desert storm we lost 2 tanks to enemy fire, and that to me, seems highly skeptical.)

If someone attacks America, or her allies, then I'll help load the bombs on the planes myself if they call me. But, if we are goign to intiate fights based upon less than all the evidence, then we've got to be an equal opportunity butt whipper.

Next in line:

• North Korea
• Iran
• Sudan
• Syria
• Lebanon
• Mexico: (For not stopping their folks from leaving)
• China: Might as well whip their butts while we still can.
• So forth & so on...

 

I'm ex-military, too. You're telling me stuff I already know and missing the main point here. China is the answer to the problem. Nobody else has the ability to resolve the issues in the region but them. The USA even trying to deal with NK without China on our side is an exercise in futility. It took NK going way off the reservation for the Chinese govt. to realize they have a serious problem that needs serious attention on their border. Had we given in to NK and given them what they want, with no gaurantee that they would even hold up thier end, dealing with the root problem would only be postponed. China needs to be more proactive with NK and more concerned for the stability of the region.

 

I thought I've read you mention that (Ex-Military) before: What branch?

I get your point, and I never said I disagreed with all of it... China has to be in bed with us if we were to take action against North Korea, or at least agree not to get involved- or the result could have been a major military conflict (Of which I'm confident we'd win) but at a cost of a great many lives. This is the only way (the hands-off approach George used) to be sure our actions didn't provoke China, the only real miliraty concern in that region for us.

I'm just saying that, to date- the 6 party talks haven't been what anyone could truly call, "successful". Not with NK having a nuke now. That (the explosion(s) ) is what made China realize this issue with North Korea coudl really be a problem...

But, China has nukes too, I'm just not sure if their nukes present a threat to the mainland USA.

Question: What made China our "sorta" enemy anyway? We somewhat helped them in WWII when Japan was pimp-slapping them (many years later, after Japan attacked us). How did we lose our uneasy alliance militarily with China? What made them cross the river and help North Korea against us?

They both got their ***** kicked, but, I stil wonder...

Not even the military channel has aired a documentary (that I've seen) that discussed "Why". They'll mention that it happened, and the human wave attacks, etc.. But, they never address the question of "why", or, more importantly, "Why" didn't we know they were coming?

 

Communism, xenophobia, and the USSR is their very close neighbor.

There is more to it than that, of course. China has been exploited by foreigners for centuries and at the turn of the last, the Brit's and the USA, to an extent, had a hand in it. After WWII there was a rise of fierce nationalism and a mistrust of outsiders. They (The Red Chinese Govt.) didn't like the idea of a free capitalist Korea, with a militarily powerful benefactor, right next door to them any more than we liked the idea of a Soviet backed Cuba just off our coastline. The height of the British Empire was still fresh in the memories of the Far East; and, they feared the possibility of an American Empire beginning at their doorstep. If they could have beaten us off the Korean Peninsula entirely, they would have liked it better; but, a buffer zone would be better than nothing. A buffer zone that was a thorn in our side would be even better. Things are slowly changing; but, it'll be a long time before we're actually friends. If ever. Hell, before Nixon went to China, most of the world had very little idea what was even going on inside it's borders. It was a nearly completely closed society.