[Fordgazm]

I do noy agree with a war on Iraq......................But if it must happen then it would be nice to know that our " friends " i.e france/ germany, have our back. So like Gt Dan said at the top..... If they do not support us then we should not support then .....BOYCOT THEIR A$$.If you aint with the us then your against us. nuff said

[GT Dan]

Coyote.....don't you think Anonymous writers and posters have little, if any, credibility??? It could be those OK guys you refered to....it could be Osama....it could be Sadam.....it could be anyone right? And you are believing them.....that they are who they represent when they say Anonymous????

Come on.....you are smarter than that aren't you?

Even if he is a Vet....who is to say he didn't get hit on the head during combat and is now mixed up right?

That list looks like something from Letterman....come on.

In response to your top ten:

1. Troops in war are always exposed to something....its war....duh!

2. Low level exposure to chemicals is dangerous.....duh!

3. "...adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines..." occur in normal US hospitals today. Remember the Falidimy (sp?) Babies? The reason we are going after the guy is to STOP the production of deadly chemicals.

4. Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic. So do most powerplants, oil refineries and other industrial sites. Do you propose we all move to a remote location and live with the white supremisists?

5. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory pills given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. The same could be said about the birth control pills my girlfriend takes.

6. The Iraqi civilian opposition was abandoned by U.S. troops in the first Gulf War. Because the French, Germans and others don't want to help flip for the security bill. I suggest you talk to those that you consider our long-term allies about this. Also, ask your French colleagues when they plan on paying off their WWII rebuild debt. We can use that money (with interest) to cover the cost of additional security in Iraq.

7. Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire. To bad he didn't get them all.....if he had we wouldn't have had the problem up in #6 that you talked about.

8. A recent news article reported that top aides for former presidents Reagan and Bush armed Iraq with these weapons during Iraq's war against Iran between 1980 and 1988. I can't believe that you even listed this one. It would be like the US developing a vaccine to cure AIDS, the US saving those dieing from it in Africa and then ten years later some of those same people attacking and killing US citizens and someone saying that we should not have given "the bad ones" the vaccine. Its a hindsight issue and I think you are bright enough to realize this.

9. U.S. allies in Europe oppose invading Iraq. They have refused to supply soldiers, funding or logistical support. Some of the serious U.S. battlefield casualties from 1991 were sent to U.S. military hospitals in Germany. Where will our casualties be flown to for emergency care if Germany follows through on its policy to remain neutral. The number of casualties will not be great. This issue has been blown out of proportion and its a weak argument....that is why its near the end of the list. There are solutions.....if you think hard enough I know you will realize that there are other options.

10. The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be able to care for additional casualties because VA can't even take care of current VA patients. Most veterans now wait six months to see a VA doctor, and most veterans wait more than six months to receive a decision on a VA disability claim. Six months....that's better than nations with social medicine that wait 2-4 years (Canada, England and others...I lived in England) and better than some of the HMO's today.

Hitler was only one man....only one life. Look at the bigger picture. Its not about one man and one life. Sadam has affected thousands and will affect even more if not stopped. More time allows him to affect even more.

[74stang2togo]

Originally posted by kscoyote
France is our oldest ally. There would be no USA without Lafayette. French Resistance was the determinig factor in WWII.

Think about it. If our position is so out there that France and Germany agree, how far are we out on a limb?

France hasn't ALWAYS been our ally... read your history! In 1812 our government had two very difficult choices to make, war with England again, or war with France, both were justified, but the war with England was more so.

[GTRaptor]

Its gonna happen in Iraq. Ya don't send troops and then do nothing. We will lose a few troops, but the high tech weapons afford the US a huge advantage. War is a risk. One has to stand up against attrocities. One takes a risk when they race their car....such is life.

Technology works, but it is not bullet proof. These guys dont need technology to carry on with terrorism. Terrorists are arranged in "cells" completely independent from each other. That means hunting down small terrorist groups all around the globe, an almost impossible task.
One thing is to take a risk and go to war where there is a defined target, and other completely different thing is go hunting for small groups around the globe.
You can take Saddam out of the picture, ok, less money to terrorists.
But the problem is still there, terrorism can make bombs out of readily available an inexpensive materials such as fertilizer. They dont need Saddam as much as you think.
One more thing, when you race a car you risk your life not everyones life.


Ethically no one can stand by and do nothing when a Hitler like personality runs a country. All of the same arguments were around with Hitler.

I'm not saying do nothing, sure Saddam has to go, and he will with or without US intervention.
And dont compare him to Hitler, Saddam is not as evil-smart as the he was, and barely has the same military capabilities.


Technology will eventually find all of those that financially support terror inside and outside of our country. The mechanisms to track money, track phone calls, track data and visually track from satelites is here. It will get tougher and tougher for people to hide and the planet will get smaller and smaller.

False, it is not that hard to hide, just ask Osama and his gang. Another "Osama" will eventually step into the picture even if he is found.


If Mexico City were hit by an explosion like 9/11, I believe that war would have occured much sooner from those running Mexico. I have been to Mexico, lived in different areas of the world and England. The sooner Bush can set up posts and sharpen his sights and deal with this situation, the sooner we will be over the problem.

Very unlikely, first Mexico is totally "anti-belic", second such scenario is very unlikely as Mexico doesnt have enemies. Mexicans in their vast majority will not support war.


Most countries do depend on the US. But many countries are sympathetic to Muslim extremists. Ya can't have it both ways. There will be a war, so pick a side. No one likes a fence sitter.

Very true, many are sympathetic, but the point is, why did they become extremists? The US and Britain stuck their nose into the middle east again and again. First mistake Israel, allowing them to take Palestine. Thats when US hatred started.
Dont get me wrong, Israelis deserve to have their own country, but has no right to take Palestinian territories. In the Arab world Israel is percieved as Germany was in WWII.
If there is a war, i would definately take a side, stop the WAR.
And nobody likes a trouble maker also.


Let me say one other thing. These tree hugging antiwar people need to think twice and be respectful of those that protect their borders and protect their rights. These men and women are heroes and are fighting for freedom.

I am respectfull of US protecting their borders and rights, but nothing will be solved with war against Irak. Terrorists will just play hide and seek and wont be stopped.
And the US is not fighting for freedom, who's freedorm, that of the Irakie people? give me a break, US is fighting for oil , yes #1 ingredient of the US economy=ENERGY. Well, this is hard to rationalize, there are many interests besides terrorism inside this war to be totally partial.



As for Bin Laden....he's either under a pile of rocks dead or hiding under a pile for the rest of his life...he's become a snake in every sense of the word. If he is the spiritual leader that he claims he is, he would not fear death, he would not hide.

Trust me this guy wants to become a martir, but anyway, whith or without him terrorism will go on as long as other problems are not solved in the area: Palestine-Israel, hunger, education, US intervention, etc.


If you do not like Bush's politics, then that's fine....no prob. If you do not like the freedoms that Bush and other Americans fight to protect, then go live under a dictator. I certainly hope Bush does finish the job this time. Keep in mind its not like he's got a simple task.

I do not like his politics, not a bit and i dont think he is protecting WORLD freedom, he is protecting only US interests. His vision is as short sighted as that of Saddam or Ossama. Not that he is a terrorist, no, he is definately not, but the consecuences of War far surpass US borders. It is a world wide problem that has to be solved by all countries.

US-Hate will only grow if Irak is attacked, it grew after Desert Storm, it will do so again. Extremists feed on hate, and war only feeds hate against the "giant".

A total change in US international politics is all that you need, stop what many call "US Imperialism" and then you will see change.

You dont see many hating Germany because they changed after WWII.

[74stang2togo]

Originally posted by GT Dan

8. A recent news article reported that top aides for former presidents Reagan and Bush armed Iraq with these weapons during Iraq's war against Iran between 1980 and 1988. I can't believe that you even listed this one. It would be like the US developing a vaccine to cure AIDS, the US saving those dieing from it in Africa and then ten years later some of those same people attacking and killing US citizens and someone saying that we should not have given "the bad ones" the vaccine. Its a hindsight issue and I think you are bright enough to realize this.

Actually, this one is true... Reagan's administration did give Iraq weapons, for defense purposes only...

Saddam Hussein abused the power those weapons gave him by using them on both Iraqi and Iranian civilians, this makes it OUR RESPONSIBILITY to dis-arm him... we owe it to the world.

[kscoyote]

Originally posted by GT Dan
Coyote.....don't you think Anonymous writers and posters have little, if any, credibility??? It could be those OK guys you refered to....it could be Osama....it could be Sadam.....it could be anyone right? And you are believing them.....that they are who they represent when they say Anonymous????

I didn't write it, and that's only one . . . what about the rest?

Rumsfeld has been ticking off the military so much they're calling hime and the rest of the Bush Administration the "C" word. (Chickenhawks) - Meaning they've never been in combat, having ducked Vietnam, but they're more than willing to send our troops on a fool's folly.

[kscoyote]

Originally posted by 74stang2togo
Actually, this one is true... Reagan's administration did give Iraq weapons, for defense purposes only...

Saddam Hussein abused the power those weapons gave him by using them on both Iraqi and Iranian civilians, this makes it OUR RESPONSIBILITY to dis-arm him... we owe it to the world.

If I thought we would support freedom and democracy in Iraq, I would be all for it. Because this particular mess, along with Afghanistan, is our own doing.

I don't think we're going there to free Iraq when we support anti-democratic regiems in the area.

[74stang2togo]

Originally posted by kscoyote
If I thought we would support freedom and democracy in Iraq, I would be all for it. Because this particular mess, along with Afghanistan, is our own doing.

I don't think we're going there to free Iraq when we support anti-democratic regiems in the area.

Afghanistan was Clinton's fault...

Reagan gave the Afghans weapons to fight back against the Soviet Union, and Afghanistan won that war.

Afterwards, we remained on somewhat friendly terms.

During the CLINTON administration, the Taliban forced out the legitimate regime that was ruling there, and CLINTON did nothing to stop them!

All CLINTON did was cut aid to them and encourae sanctions against them, which did nothing but stir hatred among the Taliban and the Afghan people.

Please read your history correctly KS...

[Ronky]

Oh well...

I have to ssy NO to war, evethough I hate what happened on 9-11 at WTC, but being truly honest:

1.- There's NOT 1 proof that Osama nor Saddam nor Kadaffee did it.
2.- As soon as the 1st. bullet is shot in Iraq, US will become "children murderer" and suchs things, this could turn the eyes of other countries (which don't like the US) and make another "Crusade"
3.- What would happen if this becomes an international matter? what would you do if while your troops are overseas fightning, terrorist cells start bombing houses and offices 8not military targets)?

Just picture, if France an Germany agree to fight along with the Uk and US (and lets say, another 2 or 3 Countries) vs. all the Musulman peple...? will this be known as religious extermination again?

Think about it...
Ronky

[kscoyote]

Originally posted by 74stang2togo
Afghanistan was Clinton's fault...

Reagan gave the Afghans weapons to fight back against the Soviet Union, and Afghanistan won that war.

Afterwards, we remained on somewhat friendly terms.

During the CLINTON administration, the Taliban forced out the legitimate regime that was ruling there, and CLINTON did nothing to stop them!

All CLINTON did was cut aid to them and encourae sanctions against them, which did nothing but stir hatred among the Taliban and the Afghan people.

Please read your history correctly KS...

It was Newt Gingrich that pulled funding for education, food, and infrastructure to Afghanistan, and other U.N. programs. -remember?

The sanctions were AGAINST the Taliban.

[74stang2togo]

Originally posted by Ronky
Oh well...

I have to ssy NO to war, evethough I hate what happened on 9-11 at WTC, but being truly honest:

1.- There's NOT 1 proof that Osama nor Saddam nor Kadaffee did it.

OKAY, so a video in which Osama Bin Laden claims his group is responible isn't proof?????

[kscoyote]

Originally posted by 74stang2togo
OKAY, so a video in which Osama Bin Laden claims his group is responible isn't proof?????

Oh, he was responsible, alright. I have friends who were doing fieldwork in the area. There received warnings daily from the state dept. in the 90's re Bin Laden.

The House Foreign Intelligence committee received all kinds of intelligence on the man and the group. Still, they accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" -remember?

They thought a bunch of "goat-herders" couldn't pull anything like that off. Bush thought the same thing. How wrong can you get?

[countymounty]

Originally posted by GT Dan
Coyote.....don't you think Anonymous writers and posters have little, if any, credibility??? It could be those OK guys you refered to....it could be Osama....it could be Sadam.....it could be anyone right? And you are believing them.....that they are who they represent when they say Anonymous????

Come on.....you are smarter than that aren't you?

Come on GT Dan haven’t you read all his posts……..it doesn’t matter if Hitler wrote something, if it is anti Republican it is The Gospel …………..

[kscoyote]

did you look at the other posts?

There are a LOT of Republicans against the war as well.

Is there anyone (actually IN the military) on this list FOR going to Iraq?

[kscoyote]

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news...ge/26656.shtml


Joint Chiefs might win battle to delay invasion of Iraq



THOMAS E. RICKS THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON -- The uniformed leaders of the U.S. military believe they have persuaded the Pentagon's civilian leadership to put off an invasion of Iraq until next year at the earliest and perhaps not to do it at all, according to senior Pentagon officials.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have waged a determined behind-the-scenes campaign to persuade the Bush administration to reconsider an aggressive posture toward Iraq in which war was regarded as all but inevitable. This included a secret briefing at the White House earlier this month for President Bush by Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who as head of the Central Command would oversee any U.S. military campaign against Iraq.

Franks told the president that invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein would require at least 200,000 troops, far more than some other military experts have calculated. This was in line with views of the Joint Chiefs, who have repeatedly emphasized the lengthy buildup that would be required, concerns about Saddam's possible use of biological and chemical weapons and the possible casualties, officials said.

The Bush administration still appears dedicated to the goal of removing the Iraqi leader from power, but partly in response to the military's advice, it is focusing more on undermining him through covert intelligence operations, two officials added.

Any final decision would be the president's. Appearing in Berlin on Thursday, Bush offered more tough rhetoric about Iraq. But at a news conference in Berlin, he also said that he had told German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder: "I have no war plans on my desk, which is the truth, and that we've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein."


The debate inside the Pentagon is only part of a larger discussion of Iraq that also involves the White House, the State Department and the CIA, among others. Those deliberations go well beyond discussing the merits of mounting a military operation and lately have focused on the role of international diplomacy and what use to make of unwieldy Iraqi opposition groups abroad.