Originally posted by Chant_50

Easy with what you say about attacking civilian populations. I know it was justified, and saved many lives, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both civilian travesties. When we dropped the two nukes on them we took out a lot of civilians; that could be considered a crime according to your reasoning. Watch what you say because you may be backing into a corner of double standards. I agree that Saddam is a major threat, and needs to be delt with. I hope we cripple them completely this time, no playing around. This rogue regime is the worst sort. They spend all their money building a military and weapons while their nation starves. The people are bearing the brunt of this regimes wrongs. The Iraqi people are scared into supporting Saddam, afterall he did kill almost the whole government as a show of power when he first took over. He is a nut, and needs to be placed into his final shell.

 

Saddam gassed his own people, that is what I intended to point out. To be honest with you the bombing of Dresden in WWII is one of the greatest untried war crimes in history IMHO. Many more people died there and Wurzburg from firebombing by British and American forces than in Hiroshima OR Nagasaki. The civilian deaths in Japan due to the dropping of the atomic bombs were collateral damage, the targets were specific industries in both cities. My primary issue with Saddam is the fact that he used chemical and biological agents against HIS OWN PEOPLE. Against his own populace. That is my biggest reason in wanting his elimination.

I think there are 3 different issues here in regards to the protesters. I think that most here object to US citizens protesting in Iraq, Europeans protesting the war, European countries refusing to join in our war effort. If anyone here is protesting the US protesters who protest in our own country, then add a 4th issue.

 

I personally am against a war with Iraq. I am philosophically opposed to war as a whole. I don't feel that THIS war is so much about ousting Sadaam, as it is a show of power. If we wanted to, we could have eliminated Sadaam at any point without a war. Our special forces have the capability to have taken him out singly, without threat to any civillians. I feel we are making a stand against Iraq, when our beef is with Sadaam. We all know that Iraqi's as a people are oppressed by him. How is it that we can justify the "collateral damage" of hundreds of civillian lives when it's really a selective few that we are trying to eliminate? Gone are the days when a nation had to totally, militarily dominate another to free an oppressed people, IMO. And, why is it that we are not threatening North Korea with war?

 

I feel that a military war will not accomplish anything more than to make other, smaller countries fear us. I am absolutely opposed to returning to the days of the Cold War when Superpowers were feared because of their military threat. I also think that the protesters feel as I do-that military action anywhere, initiated by the United States will divert the attention away from Homeland Security, leaving us wide open for internal attacks. Unlike any war we've ever fought, I firmly believe that we will see attacks on our own continental soil. Pearl Harbor aside, we've never been attacked on our own soil by a show of military force from another country.

 

I think that a lot of the foreign protesters fear the same issues and feel the same as the US protesters. I think we all know we're at war against terrorism, we just realize that terrorism cannot be fought effectively with military war. Terrorists do not operate as a military force as we know it, as evidenced by the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the bus bombings and bombings of embassies, hotels, restaurants, etc all across the world. Terrorists strike where you least expect and when you least expect. A war with Iraq will not, in any way be a threat to terrorists. It will only strengthen their fanatical mindsets and provoke further attacks.

 

OK--I've said enough for the moment. I have more, but I will wait until later. (Like everyone is just dying to hear what else I say!LOL!!!)

 

:lol: :lol:

Originally posted by rockmom

A war with Iraq will not, in any way be a threat to terrorists. It will only strengthen their fanatical mindsets and provoke further attacks.

 

Will it not hurt the terrorists when they loose their most powerful commrade? A lot of what you said makes sense, but I have to take exception with this point. I think we would deal a huge blow to Al-Quada by removing Saddam and anyone else who might be aiding/financing them.

Ash-

IMO-it's a minor threat. I believe there are many more low-profile financiers. While I believe that Sadaam is involved, I do not believe he is the key here. And the keys to this puzzle are not to be found lying out in the open. They're hidden and disguised. That's just my opinion....

I should point out rockmom, that the CIA has been banned from using assassination since the Carter administration, that idealistic moron. So we could not take him out in that way. If you ask me the best agency to take him out would be the Massad. I don't think there is an intelligence agency in the world that compares to these guys. I'm just glad they're with us.

Originally posted by PepRock01

I should point out rockmom, that the CIA has been banned from using assassination since the Carter administration, that idealistic moron. So we could not take him out in that way. If you ask me the best agency to take him out would be the Massad. I don't think there is an intelligence agency in the world that compares to these guys. I'm just glad they're with us.

 

Agreed. But, please....If we wanted it done, we could have had it done....

Originally posted by Chant_50

I have been deep in study because I was in Charleston all weekend, and didn't study for two tests that I had today. No time for TV when grades are at stake.

 

This is in no offense to you, so please dont take it as such, but your comment makes a very good point. I would say most of these people in college who are protesting on campus are in the same boat, they don't have the time to keep up with everything that is going on, but yet they feel they are informed enough to go against the US, and what their own country is backing. If someone has the time to review the facts and listen to what is going on, then if they want to side with France and the opposition then that is fine. They seem to think everyone else wants war, no one does!! They say give peace a chance? What about give war a chance? We have been giving peace a chance for almost 12 years, and it is not working, and 1000s of innocent Iraqis are dead because of Saddam, where is the humanity there?

One thought...

 

1. Many protesters assert that Iraq is not a threat to the United States or our hegemony. Arguendo, I'll concede that point, but my question is, where were these protesters during our Clinton wars/military deployments with Angola, Haiti and Bosnia? Surely the might Angolan army was not a threat to our nation.

Originally posted by CentreRocks

One thought...

 

1. Many protesters assert that Iraq is not a threat to the United States or our hegemony. Arguendo, I'll concede that point, but my question is, where were these protesters during our Clinton wars/military deployments with Angola, Haiti and Bosnia? Surely the might Angolan army was not a threat to our nation.

 

Good point. We were engaged in more "peacekeeping" operations during the Clintonian era than almost any other. Lord knows his foreign policy didn't help our international image.

I understand what you guys are getting at. I don't necessarily agree, though. I think that one thing that has changed since Angola, Bosnia, Haiti, etc, is our sense of invlunerability. As I said earlier, we've never had to face a war that could lead to battles on our own soil. It's in our own backyard now, or it could be. Granted, that doesn't excuse that no one protested the previous conflicts. I think that people now are realizing that in order to be heard, you have to speak up. Before, if you didn't agree, so what? It's not like it was going to affect you one way or the other. The war was "over there". Now, the war is "here". Again, these are just my opinions.

 

And, SG-I don't feel that I'm uninformed. I keep up with current events, but I try to be objective in my views, especially when I'm trying to decide how I feel about something. I don't expect that I'll always be in the majority with my views. In fact, most often, I'm in the minority. I do take great pride, however, in trying to be open-minded about most things. For myself, in this issue, I cannot support this war.

 

I can also say that it really upsets me when I hear people who are for the war, for very valid reasons, I might add, bash those who speak out against the protesters as if they were traitors. I think that we all need to be more careful about throwing that term around...especially now.

 

Originally posted by PepRock01

I should point out rockmom, that the CIA has been banned from using assassination since the Carter administration, that idealistic moron. So we could not take him out in that way. If you ask me the best agency to take him out would be the Massad. I don't think there is an intelligence agency in the world that compares to these guys. I'm just glad they're with us.

 

While this was a "policy" of the Carter Administration........if you are thinking that our operatives have not used this "considerable adjustment".........rethink it

Originally posted by rockmom

I understand what you guys are getting at. I don't necessarily agree, though. I think that one thing that has changed since Angola, Bosnia, Haiti, etc, is our sense of invlunerability. As I said earlier, we've never had to face a war that could lead to battles on our own soil. It's in our own backyard now, or it could be. Granted, that doesn't excuse that no one protested the previous conflicts. I think that people now are realizing that in order to be heard, you have to speak up. Before, if you didn't agree, so what? It's not like it was going to affect you one way or the other. The war was "over there". Now, the war is "here". Again, these are just my opinions.

 

1. We will not have war on our soil. No country will be able to invade the US. We may have acts of terrorism, that kill many civilians. But rest assured, there will not be Iraqi jets patrolling the Louisville International Airport's space, nor will there be foreign tanks travelling down Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

2. "I think that people now are realizing that in order to be heard, you have to speak up."

Didn't people realize this in 1776 with King George?

Originally posted by Sideliner

While this was a "policy" of the Carter Administration........if you are thinking that our operatives have not used this "considerable adjustment".........rethink it

 

Changes to the CIA were made by that administration that prevent assassination attempts. The current administration may change it, and it is likely they will, but until then no assassination attempts may be made by our CIA.

Originally posted by PepRock01

Changes to the CIA were made by that administration that prevent assassination attempts. The current administration may change it, and it is likely they will, but until then no assassination attempts may be made by our CIA.

 

I think the point Sideliner was making is that just because we don't "officially" initiate assassination attempts does not mean that "unofficial" activity doesn't occur.

 

Sideliner-Is that what you meant?

Originally posted by CentreRocks

1. We will not have war on our soil. No country will be able to invade the US. We may have acts of terrorism, that kill many civilians. But rest assured, there will not be Iraqi jets patrolling the Louisville International Airport's space, nor will there be foreign tanks travelling down Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

2. "I think that people now are realizing that in order to be heard, you have to speak up."

Didn't people realize this in 1776 with King George?

 

1. I'm not at all as sure of that as you are.

2. I'm just saying that it's been a long time since 1776, and Americans had become a lot more complacent since then. Time has a remarkable way of dimming the urgency of things..ie-speaking in order to be heard.