inmate running the asylum Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 War inside Iraq has already begun according to various sources, as also reported today on Fox News [bill O'Reilly show]. This time we will get that S.O.B., Sadam Hussein.... because this time its PERSONAL. :laugh: http://www.rense.com/general33/iri.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 please do not joke or laugh about war. it is the most serious issue we can take. When we go to war we should support are soldiers and hope for as quick a resolution as possible. As to the thought behind the joke- I hope we do win thoroughly, however, I pray that amongst the reasons we will go to war that the chief motivator is not that it has become a persoal vedetta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 it's OK to support the troops, but not the idiot president, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 It is your duty as an American to voice your disagreements. So, voicing dipleasure with your president is a good thing, especially if you perceive his actions to be idiotic. War is just a very serious issue to me and should be treated with gravity, unless you are intending satire. Satires are also pretty serious though. Who know it may have been too early in the morning and I took a comment too seriously that was pretty innocent. I do hope it's not a personal thing simply origionally piicked to correct Daddy's boo boo and because he's a menace we can easily bully as opposed to N. Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 The fact that Iraq can be handled with relative ease is one of the reasons this must be done now, before it becomes as big a threat as N. Korea. By removing Sadam, we remove a potentialy deadly threat and free up our flank. We face a multitude of threats in the coming decade. Best to remove those that we can now rather than face more threats and their increased danger later. It is simply good sound military strategy as described by Sun Tsu. Somone posted an article titled "Death from fear of death" which argued against a war in Iraq. I propose to you that Death from fear of death is best used to describe the action and result that will happen if we are afraid to confront the danger of Iraq now while the situation can be more easily handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 From my perspective you can question whether the Bush Administration has thought out the consequences of a war with Iraq in terms of the support and infrastructure building that will be necessary afterward. Certainly the US occupying an Arab country for a period of years as in Japan after WWII is not a palatable option. You can also question whether the Administration has reasonably gauged how an Iraq intervention will ripple through Middle East politics and how that will work itself out over the next 3-5 years, especially in the effort to combat the organized terror networks that are outside of the control of any one country or leader. BUT, what I find ironic is that a lot of the same people that are clamoring for expanded inspections as the way to handle the Iraq crisis are the ones that sat idly by in 1998 when Hussein unilaterally abrogated the inspections regime. Hussein booted out the inspectors and there was silence from the UN, European Union and the Clinton Administration. So, how are inspections NOW to be the most important element in an Iraq policy in the West when they weren't judged to be important enough to raise a whimper over in 1998 when they were ended? The United States? As opposed to the possibly 'dumb' George Bush who is now confronting Iraq with direct intervention, we had the 'smart' Bill Clinton who had the Navy fire several missiles into Iraq and then promptly went to sleep on Hussein for the next 2 and half years he was in office. And are we to blame Clinton only here in the US? Back in 1998 people in the US were seemingly interested only in the rise of the stock market and trying to make a quick buck through speculation. We were on the verge of DOW 20,000, right? Even if Clinton would have gone to Congress for action against Hussein on a political and economic level let alone a military one, he probably wouldn't have gotten very far. Nobody in this country wanted to rock the all powerful economic boat. Nobody wanted to consider that we still needed to be engaged internationally from a political and diplomatic perspective as well as an economic one. The tough decisions could wait for another day. Well, today is that day............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 I believe the incident in question was that Iraq was moving ground to air missles into the southern no fly zone. They were dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Yeah war is a serious issue. And so is the fact that Germany, France and Russia continue to oppose war because they have oil contracts with Saddam Huiessen. I cannot believe that does not get more attention! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 Bulldog made some good non-football points, that are all valid. When I posted that the war has already begun, I was really referring to Special Forces which are already operating on the ground inside Iraq with the locals. This is the way our operation in Afghanistan began, before we began to take out specific targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 if it makes you feel better to call Bush an idiot, dimwit, whatever pejorative you want, go for it. it adds nothing to the equation and, to be quite frank, causes the reader reviewing such posts to think...."dimwit, idiotic poster. next!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPare Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 I find it interesting to see people who call George Bush slow, dimwitted, or idiotic. I think that a lot of this comes from the fact htat his worldview is just so different, and that he constantly challenges the conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, there are far too few people who put too little thought into their beliefs (no matter what they are). they accept a certain pattern of thoughts, and when somebody believes differently, they will automatically assume that the person is stupid, simply because when presented with the same set of facts they come to different conclusions. And, becuase they haven't done a lot of thinking in terms of why they think the way that they do, they cannot come up with any explanation for coming to a different conclusion other than being stupid. In this case, what's more interesting is that most of the people thinking that Bush is stupid also believe that the world would not have as many problems if only we took the time to understand other people's point of view.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Personally I know I am pretty dumb. So I put my views out there and watch them get ripped apart in an effort to better understand whether or not my views have what it takes to hang or weather they need to be tweaked. Now regarding Bush I not only voted for the guy but I think he is a great dancer...:laugh: I see this Iraq issue possing a bigger problem regarding our war on terrorism in the worlds spot light. Radicle Muslims are looking for reasons to provoke their followers to strike. This is the heart of terrorism. They need us to go in their and kill the civilions of Iraq, so they can use our Attack outside Un authority to unleash their zombie like followers. Let's not add fuel to the terrorists fire while trying to put it out. Have you ever tried using water to spread, I mean put out a grease fire. You get my point. I am not Mr peace and daisies. I'd love to see us take this guy out, I'd like to see us liberate N. Korea, but we have to be more creative... I was opposed to a rush to war witout the UN, Now I see Bush has unofficially backed down for a Month... U.S. Gives Iraq Another Month Stewart Stogel Saturday, Feb. 15, 2003 United Nations -- Yielding to increased pressure by the UN Security Council, the Bush administration has unofficially given Iraq another month to comply with UN demands to disarm. During a private session of the Security Council on Friday, the US did not block a request by UN chief arms inspector Dr. Hans Blix to be given a month for Iraq to devise a mechanism to destroy prohibited missiles found in its possession. "He asked for the time and we had no objection," explained one US official at the closed meeting. Another diplomat in attendance also confirmed the US account. Calls to the UN arms chief's office were not returned. Blix's plan on how to deal with the missile issue has two parts: First, Baghdad has been given an "opportunity" to "react" to UNMOVIC's (UN Monitoring, Observation and Inspection Commission) findings that the al-Samoud II missile violates Council sanctions. Second, within 30 days, Iraq must present to the UN arms chief a plan on how it intends to dispose of the illegal missiles in conformity with UN resolutions. This effectively puts off any US military campaign until mid-March confirm State Dept. officials. "One way or another these missiles will be taken care of next month," one official added. Coincidentally, broadcast reports with US Navy officials confirmed that the Pentagon needs approximately three more weeks to ship additional tanks and helicopters to the Gulf. The controversial al-Samoud missile is believed by the UN to have a range slightly exceeding the 150 km permitted under UN resolutions. Iraq first mentioned the missile problem in a declaration made to the UN last October. During a visit to Baghdad last month, Blix was provided with extensive information on the design and of firing tests of the missile by the Iraqis. The declarations were then referred by the UN to an independent group of missile engineers who released their findings to a meeting of UNMOVIC's executive board in New York on Wednesday. While the missile's extended range of 25 miles is not necessarily strategic in its ability to hit any new major cities or military bases in the region, it could become a factor if used against US forces should war break out, confirms a US diplomat. Baghdad explains the problem by claiming that the al-Samoud's tests were with missiles not fully loaded with an explosive warhead and guidance system. When fully equipped, the Iraqis claim the al-Samoud does not violate UN resolutions. The UN rejected the Iraqi claims, but has again asked Baghdad to respond to the findings. The missile debate capped a day Secretary of State Colin Powell would just as soon forget. Powell sat through more than three hours of open and some closed lectures by countless foreign ministers at the special Council meeting to hear an "update" by Blix and IAEA (atomic inspectors) chief Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei. Both men told the Council they believed that arms inspections "were working" and that they have found no "convincing" evidence Iraq was currently "cheating" and hiding weapons of mass destruction. Blix also questioned the "accuracy" of some of the "intelligence" evidence Powell presented to the Council last week. Blix insisted that to date his people have found "no evidence" of Iraq trying to actively conceal prohibited weapons or obstructing any arms inspections. The foreign ministers of France, Russia, China and Germany quickly jumped on the Blix report to insist that the time for war (with Iraq) has still not come. One aide to U.S.ambassador John D. Negroponte insisted that Powell did not have a bad day. The aide insisted that the Council was finally "becoming aware" that events are moving towards a "conclusion." He added that the Council members are maneuvering for more time to decide "domestically" on how they will have to deal with the "inevitable." article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 Spare....I followed you right up to the end. and though yours was a very decent and well intended post...I have to ask...what does understanding others points-of-view have to do with flying jetliners into buildings, bombing embassies, and suicide attacks on American warships? as the prosecutor in the mercedes trial argued.......murder isn't an option no matter what your point-of-view may happen to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 16, 2003 Author Share Posted February 16, 2003 "Coincidentally, broadcast reports with US Navy officials confirmed that the Pentagon needs approximately 3 more weeks to ship additional tanks and helicopters to the Gulf." The above is what I read and posted on another thread. The Apache helicopters for the 101st Airborne were just now being loaded on ships a couple days ago. So the administration can appear to be "negotiating" but the reality is that all the equipment and troops will not be in place for at least another 30 days. And that is also assuming that Turkey lets our troops deploy from her soil -- which as of today, Feb 16th, may be delayed by a vote in their parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 The timeline for the coming offensive will be set by Gen Franks, not by the UN or anyone else in the world. When he calls the CIC and says"We're ready to roll", that's when the balllon will go up. We have had Special Forces in Iraq since early last summer. they are there for a number of reasons, to include; Recon, of course Coordination with the various factions that want a piece of saddams a$$ To surveil the positions of SCUD missles and depots for all of the WMD's saddam says he doesn't have. When the ballon goes up, they will be the first targets we try to dispatch, hopefully before they can be used. They will be the "tip of the spear" when this all goes down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.