Will we go to war with Iraq?

[JackC]

Will the President begin a war with Iraq before the November elections in a attempt to save seats for his party? I would say it's quite likely. I would guess he would wait until early October. Can you say wag the dog?

[Funkyalligator]

Going to war with Iraq is a very very very bad idea. We should become better friends with Iran and they will do the dirty work for us because they hate Iraq.

[fansince62]

the Iraqis are great guys who pose no threat to any of us. i say we should engage in intense discussions as to how we can promote and buttress the current Iraqi leadership. our current president should realize this - what a fool he is to think that something contrary to this country's, and possibly the world's, long-term security is at stake. nothing like focusing on the irrelevant!!!! is this becoming a trademark signature?

[RiggoDrill]

The administration will TRY to go to war with Iraq. Whether or not they succeed is open to question.

But the "War on Terrorism" is just a pretext. The real issue is that the Hussein regime has standing contracts with Russian and Chinese oil conglomerates to develop untapped oil reserves once the current embargo is lifted.

If we engineer a "regime change" (as opposed to just emasculating the current regime) those contracts can be nullified, and the development deals can to US companies -- can we say "Cheney"?

I sure hope the mothers and fathers of this country are willing to put their children in harm's way for oil companies.

Heck, the rest of the country doesn't seem to give a sh!t -- we keep buying gas-guzzling SUV's by the thousands, virtually ensuring that we will be engaged in military action in the Middle East for the next 30 years.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

The administration will TRY to go to war with Iraq. Whether or not they succeed is open to question.

But the "War on Terrorism" is just a pretext. The real issue is that the Hussein regime has standing contracts with Russian and Chinese oil conglomerates to develop untapped oil reserves once the current embargo is lifted.

If we engineer a "regime change" (as opposed to just emasculating the current regime) those contracts can be nullified, and the development deals can to US companies -- can we say "Cheney"?

I sure hope the mothers and fathers of this country are willing to put their children in harm's way for oil companies.

Heck, the rest of the country doesn't seem to give a sh!t -- we keep buying gas-guzzling SUV's by the thousands, virtually ensuring that we will be engaged in military action in the Middle East for the next 30 years.

Nice post, Riggo.

[PCS]

Wag the dog huh? Hmmmmm. Serbia and Lewinsky. 3 days? after televised admission to affair with Lewinsky, bombing of Iraq. Eve of impeachment vote and bombing Iraq. Paula Jones and, you bet, bombing Iraq. The day after settling with her?

I'm going to say unlikely.

[JackC]

Park City,

You forgot one. Invade Grenda after hundreds of Marines are killed.

We shall see if the tail wags the dog this fall!

[gbear]

Alrighty, I'll be the voice of doom on this one. I don't think we will go to war until atleast AFTER the elections. Sure, maybe we will right on the eve, but it sure won't be much earlier.

Why? Becuase this time I would expect many more injuries and deaths on our side than the last time. The last time, Iraq tried to hold territory. I'm not sure they would have any real incentive to do that this time.

Seriously, I doubt Iraq's army would fair any better on open fields this time than they did last time. There is simply too great a technology gap and too great an airpower gap to be overcome that way.

However, what is to stop them from taking a Palestinian approach? Retreat to the cities. From there, they can fight door to door and blaim the U.S. for every civilian that gets hurt. What's more, in urban warfare, it's almost a given the U.S. will suffer more casualties which will make it more unpopular at home. Successful tactics are usually copied in wars, and while the Palestinians haven't been "successful," their results have been better than Iraq's versus us in the Gulf war.

If the U.S. decides to go to war with Iraq, we better have the politcal stomach for it. I doubt it will help the person who decides to do it win any popularity contests here or abroad. Don't take this to mean I don't think there is just cause for the war. It just means that I see this as potentially a far messier war than the gulf war was.

[RiggoDrill]

As I said, we're in it for the oil, so go for a long ride in your Ford Excursions, America!

[PCS]

Actually Jack, no I didn't forget one. Simply adding a little history of Wag the Dog forein policy. In the spirit of fair and balanced of course. That and many at the time saw no real correlation between the 241 Marines killed in Beirut, ( friend of mine was there), and Grenada. Here's an example.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande07.html

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Invading Iraq is a bad bad idea. There are other ways to take out Saddam besides outright invasion. Those means should be explored first. Honestly if somehow Saddam, those damn mullahs in Iran and Arafat would be put out of power I would feel much better about my Muslim leaders in the middle east. Oh add the Saudi Royal family to my hit list.

[fansince62]

have any of you been paying attention to recent press? even the POST? do you think that maybe, just maybe, there might be something going on to be truly worried about? take a good, hard look at that part of the world fellas. reflect deeply on what is going on and has happened there and here. then, perhaps, you'll screw your courage to the proverbial sticking point and admit that something needs to be done. after all, it won't be your feet hitting the ground, so what's the problem? more comnfortable with starving children to death than bombing their parents? a distinction without a difference should you ask me. there are times when you have to act to reduce the threat. now that would be a more interesting, dare I hope, elevated approach to this thread. what is the threat and should we act? since none of you are at immediate risk of actually having to do the dirty work the evident reticense isn't exactly clear. yep, it's all about oil and SUVs - what an intensely deep view of what the real threat is. I should have known: it's been detroit all along. no it's those nasty consumers exercising the same freedom of choice to purchase the SUVs of desire that others advocate for birth control. how foolish of me to think that the current predicament may lie somewhere else than my own country's greed, negligence and excess. you really nailed this one guys.:shootinth

btw....there is a small matter in logic.....post hoc, ergo propter hoc: "after this because of this" which describes a logic fallacy. the assumptions presented above may be true.....but i haven't seen anyone advance a shred of documented evidence. a small detail, i know. wouldn't want to burden anyone with something like that.

[Sarge]

JAck C and others........Are you guys by chance FRENCH? If not, can you give me some demographics to work with here. I won't be nearly as worried for the future of this country if you say you are 8 to 14 and have not gradumicated publik skool. Have you all ever even been outide this country? He!!, outside your state? If not, you have nothing to base your position. You barely have anything to base an opinion except a dose of left wing Dan Rather news. The good thing about this country is that everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how unedumakated it is.

First, of course it's for oil. I knew that in Desert Storm and still went, because I want gas to stay around a dollar. The only other way to keep gas around a dollar is to develope our own. Unfortunately, liberal tree huggers keep us from doing this, ergo.....we get oil from our sources overseas.

Second, Uncle Hussain is not a nice person at all. Perhaps you should actually pick and read a history book ( what a concept, huh?) and see what he did to get to power. It is not pretty. And to be honest, I could give a rat's a$$ less about him at all, except for the fact that he still has a lot of money, and tends to use that money to buy/develope bad things. ( as opposed to spending it on trivial stuff....like food for his people). Things that may come to a neighborhood near you in the future via some of Uncle hussains cousins ( they're all related, you know). I for one don't want that to happen.......again. But I wish you all would wake up from the little dream world that most everybody seemed to be in during the 90's and realize what a nasty place the world is, and that there are people out there that want to do us in. What really concerns me, is that we were given one he!! of a wake up call on 9/11, and that people still have attitudes like yours.

I for one don't WANT to go to Iraq. I hate the effing desert. But if we don't do something about Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, they are gonna come back and visit us again. Is this what you advocate? Because make no mistake, they will be back, unless we hurt them bad. Power is the only thing the Arab mentality understands. I, for one, am for gutting their "government" and saying, "We're gonna be here for a while, and you're gonna like it. By the way, here's a copy of the US Constitution. Read it.". Not bad advice for some of you all, either.

Do I agree with everything President Bush is doing? No. In Sarges world, the friggin' border would have been shut down. Anyone here illegally would be deported ( and yes, that includes profiling and kicking in a few doors). And these buttheads that are currently making a mockery of our liberal court system would have been facing a military court and a firing squad if found guilty. But going into these people's countries and rooting out terrorists is a must. And I would much rather do it myself than have my son have to do it ten years from now. By then, if the world is a fairly stable place again, you all can beam back to your motheship and climb back into your liberal world, where the sky is always rose colored and as long as you are doing alright, well then, everything must be right in the world

[skinsfan44]

Air Sarge, I couldn't have said it better myself.:asta: :notworthy

[JackC]

Air Sarge,

By any chance do you have a red neck? You sure used a lot of words to say so very little. Oh you want to invade Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy. OK I agree Saddam is a bad guy. Our government does business daily with plenty of guys as bad or worse as him so there goes your theory. Who's next after Iraq? Iran? South Korea? France?

As for the oil question, don't you think it would wise to develop a source of fuel that is not fixed like oil? BTW why do you suppose Dumya is for drilling off the coast of California and not Florida? Come on think real hard. Nevermind.

If people with views like yours get too much power our civil liberties are history!

Here's a question for you. If September 11th could have been avoided but Americans had to give up the right to free speech and the government had the power to search anyone for any reason, would you be in favor?

I wouldn't.

[NavyDave]

Air Sarge my sentiments exactly.

Call me a black redneck I guess but since these spineless wimpy liberals are of the typical armchair variety who dont go make things happen I'm not surprised by JackC.

We didnt have to give up free speech for 9/11 to be avoided you dope those bast@rds werent US Citizens.

But just like the hispanic terrorist if we stopped all of these bast@rds before 9/11 you liberals would have been screaming racial profiling and while ignoring they are illegal aliens that we are violating their rights.

How hard is that to comprehend?

If we werent so soft on immigration things like millions of illegals would be easyto handle.

Let me guess you fools ignored last weeks report by part time liberal Geraldo Rivera showing Nicaragua, france and Saudi as gateways for the terrorist.

I did the gulf thing back in 90-91 but since Iran is far more dangerous I understood then why we didnt take out Saddam.

If we can just replace him and the rest of the middle east's dictators and monarchs the world will be better off.

Look at india land full of rag heads but with democracy a better place

If you played the game RISK you can see the power vacuum/border known as Iraq protecting the middle east from IRAN so if we do take them out imagine a swarm of locust the fundamentalist right at Saudis Door and the saudis are considered to be liberal sluts in the eyes of Iran.

Off shore drilling as well as drilling in alaska would reduce the dependance of foreign oil yet there is excuse after excuse not too so of course you deal with the bad guys.

[gbear]

Again and again I read the defense of our actions being "they aren't citizens." OKay, for just a second, I'll put aside my arguement that we do infact have atleast one citizen sitting in a cell arrested with no charges being brought against him and no intention to try him.

I'll put all that aside, and I still wonder if treating others differently than we treat our own citizens doesn't violate the ideas this country was founded apon. As I read the declaration of independance (2nd paragraph) it talks about human rights, not citizens rights. When did we start thinking that just by being citizens, we get rights that others shouldn't be afforded? Doesn't this go against all men created equally? What about equality under the law?

Maybe I take a naive view of how I judge others. I tend to judge others by how well they treat people when treating others well gains them little or nothing. To me, a standup guy is the one who takes time to open a door or give a weekends worth of charity work or tells the unfavorable truth. I can't help but think that history will ultimately judge our country by how well we stuck to our ideals, even when it wasn't convenient.

[Funkyalligator]

Going to war with Iraq will go down as one of the biggest blunders ever by an American President. We cannot start a war with them. If we go to war with Iraq the whole middle east will be against us, no matter what we say or do. We can't have that in our current environment........Israel will be attacked by chemical weapons and we might very well have suicide bombers on our streets here in America.

[fansince62]

funky....all of which has already happened!

[Funkyalligator]

Yeah I know but I mean a lot worse than it is. Saddam Hussein pays the families of suicide bombers 50,000 dollar each when they die. I'm sure he would offer millions of dollars to get people to do suicide bombings in the US. As for chemical weapons Israel was never really attacked by anything harmful I am talking serious bio-chem warfare i.e. anthrax, nerve gas etc.

[NavyDave]

Some of you guys sound like the 66% of Citizens(?) who didnt want to uset England by fighting for our freedom but thankfully the 33% who made things happened didnt do the typical head in the sand approach.

Iraq has been stockpiling stuff since the inspectors have been gone so WTF should we do?

Wait until the arsenal is so immense that we have our work cut out for us defending Israel and ourselves?

Citizen in jail? What citizen?

A nauralized citizen who may be in one of the sleeper cells?

Some of you need a trip overseas to see the real world.

[Funkyalligator]

I don't think war is the right answer, covert operations aimed at targeted assasinations, massive accidents etc, etc. We don't want to do anything overt that will allow Saddam to turn the whole arab world against us, don't get me wrong I don't trust any of the arab nations nor do i really like them but we need to have some good repoire with them. We need to develop better relations with the moderates in Iran especially their president, better our ties with Egypt. Saudi Arabia is the worst two faced country in the Middle East, they say one thing and then everyone in their country does another. On the surface we should stay friends with them but underneath consider them an enemy.

[gbear]

Navy Dave,

As I understand it:

The citizen who is sitting in jail is the guy who Ashcroft says planed to build a dirty bomb. He is being held with no plans to try him for any crimes. What's more, The U.S. took the position that the lawyer who tried to represent him can't because the lawyer hasn't met him to be hired by him. Of course the kicker is without a lawyer, there is nobody to file a suit saying he is being held unconstitutionally. So by denying a lawyer, they also deny him a trial or the need to file charges. They just hold him indefinitely. But I'm sure the conservatives who back everything Ashcroft does in the name of war have no problem with this.

As a liberal, I say charge the guy and fry the guy. IF you've got enough to arrest him, don't make a mockery of our legal system. There are plenty of things to charge him with, not the least of which is conspiracy to commit murder. Treason wouldn't be a bad way to go either.

One more thing: Are you now saying naturalized citizens aren't "real citizens." Afterall, they "may" be part of a sleeper cell. That's insulting. Maybe next we can have a caste system based on how many generations a family has been in the U.S. Hate to point it out, but mayflower desendants are terrorists too.

[JackC]

NavyDave,

Please try to read more carefully. My question was hypothetical and unanswered. As for your Revolutionary War theory I would argue the liberals would be the Patriots while the consevatives would have been the Torries. Safe to say I'm right on that one.

[Sarge]

JackC, nice reply. It surely is a sign of both a feeble mind and an unsupportable position to revert to name-calling. And thanks for the reply on the demographics. It helps to know I’m not dealing with someone who spent their formative years when Bubba was in office, but rather someone who could have possibly done a little too much LDS as a youngster.

First, it does not surprise me that you are from Maryland. You have already lost more of your Constitutional rights than even you realize, so you should be used to it. For example, (and I’ll use this example because I know it’ll stick in your liberal crawl) how long would it take you to buy a gun in Maryland? That right is in the Second Amendment, you know. Also, I don’t recall the Constitution calling for taxation to run all the different agencies that most states are operating. How does anyone think that big government is the way to go, especially in MD, when they raise tax rates so high that businesses relocate to Virginia for relief? Guess what, that leaves all that more burden for you, the average person, to pay to keep your bloated government up and running. Congratulations, I know you’re probably more than happy to do it. In fact, you’re probably someone that has 0 deductions on your taxes, because you think it’s a good deal to get money back at the end of the year. Have fun, I prefer to keep my money, thank you.

Now, as for a lot of words in my reply, I write replies to the level of understanding of the receiver. Were I speaking to someone that has one bloody clue about the way the world works, or about the military, I’m certain I could’ve gotten away with a lot fewer words. However, I will at least take the time to clear up your misconceptions on military downsizing. Feel free to check these facts, but I have found in the past that people like you seldom tend to let facts get in the way of their opinions.

During Bush Sr’s term, he did indeed start the downsizing of the military. Actually, if you look at real spending, Reagan started the downsizing in 1987. (That was probably the year in college that you missed liberal arts class because someone passed one last bong around that night, and instead of going to class the next day you went in search of a frig to raid). That year the defense budget was $400 billion. After that, spending went down every year, especially after 91, when the Soviet Union collapsed (due to their attempt to match Reagan’s military build up) And what a feat that was alone. Reagan drove an aggressive, expansionist country to ruin……and never fired a shot. Anyway, Bush Sr said in 1991 in reference to the defense budget, “ This far, and no more.” Well, guess what happened next year? Along came Bubba, who dodged service, and self admittedly “Loathed the military”. And in order to support an increase in government spending (on worthwhile programs like feeding illegal immigrants and giving them healthcare), he increased everyone’s taxes and cut the military’s budget even further. It finally bottomed out in 1997 ( Who was in office, JackC?) at 260 billion, with minor increases to about 290 billion in 2002, thankfully clinton’s last budget and year in orifice. (By the way, none of this is adjusted for inflation) In that time, the Air Force went from 21 fully supported and operational Air Wings to 12. Other services suffered similar cuts in personnel and manpower. Meanwhile, our work quotient (That would be all of the pizza delivering deployments masquerading as peace missions, or the lobbing of bombs whenever someone got caught getting their pecker sucked) went up 200%. There lies the infamous, “Do more with less” saying that we have been living with ever since. It’s a true testament to everyone in the service that we can still do what we did recently, and do it as well as we did. But now our equipment, in general, is OLD and needs to be replaced. That, and the fact that military pay was some 14%-19% behind the private sector and increasing. Hence, the increase in defense spending. Had the military been properly maintained over the clinton years, the increase probably wouldn’t need to be as dramatic. That’s pretty much military spending in a nutshell. Like I said, feel free to check these FACTS. If you want to come back and dabble in the area of foreign policy, I’ll be happy to lay a few FACTS on you in that area, as well. Now, please note my comments in paragraph 3 about a lot of words. Have a nice day.