I support the troops....

[ironglow]

Seems like everyone, even liberals say....I support the troops..

  Trouble is many are lying...they CLAIM to support the troops but complain about what the troops are doing...
 

  Something like:

  1) I support Doctors...but they better not be making people well..

  2) I support the dog catcher...but he better not catch any dogs..

  3) I support dentists...but they better not fix any teeth...

           Makes sense huh !...it does if one is a Lib !
 
  No common sense way...one CANNOT support doctors, dog catchers, dentists or troops...unless they support them in their work

   To refuse to support the troops in their struggles, is in effect, turning against them...

[fe352v8]

Sending them in with improper equipment and poor intelligence, I guess is a true show of support, only if your a conservative.

I do not like them being in Iraq, my son returned six months ago, my new son-law is deploying.  I do no support the policy that sent them.  Bring them home, unharmed is the best support, in lieu of that, it bugging my congressmen to up grade armour, equipment, and giving to the USO, is what I have been doing.  I am open to suggestions.

life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[williamlayton]

Support the troops.
Do not support those/leadership with no recognizable ability to discern if what they are doing is proper/correct/has a plan of action/has a clue as to what the outcome will be/has a clue as to the effect will actually be/is not thinking for hissownself but acting for others whose goal is gain or $$$$$.
Seems as though we have been down this road before, the trail looks the same, compass readings are the same but I see no jungle and the languages are different--but then the French are not here so it must be the same place.
OH WELL>
Blessings

[magooch]

You have to play very loosely with the facts to believe that we are in Iraq to enrich some of the Presidents friends, or that we are there because the President lied.  

Every leader from both political parties in this country and many others from around the world knew well that Saddam and his murderous sons would have to be dealt with sooner or later.  Anyone who buys into the idea that Saddam didn't have any WMDs is just not being realistic.  Maybe they were disposed of, mabe not, but who in their right mind would trust that that was the case.  In any event, Saddam failed to satisfy the relevant U.N. resolutions.

We are not in Iraq simply because of WMDs.  President Bush stated very clearly that Saddam and his sons would have to go voluntarily, or we would assist them.  They chose the latter.

I find it very interesting that many of the folks who are adamantly against  our actions in Iraq, had no problem with our bombing the snot out of Serbia.  Iraq under Saddam was at least a threat to us that we could no longer ignor or tolerate.  What threat did Serbia, or any of those Balkan states pose to us.

In both cases, Congress and the President made the decision that we should do what we did.  It's always easy to look back and say we should have done this or that after a lot of water has passed under the bridge.  Even Vietnam was a justified action that could have been a positive thing if it had been handled right.

Where I think we (our leadership) makes its biggest mistake is that when we go to war, we don't go all out.  War should be fought with weapons, not with troops.  That's right--blow them to hell!!!!

[FWiedner]

Mr. Magooch, I have to disagree with you on a couple of things.  This rant isn't aimed at you, just kind of a general venting thing...

How ingenuine is it to claim to stand behind UN authority to start a war that the UN was solidly against?

The right hand says "The UN has no authority", and the left hand says "...but the UN made a resolution".

And how many WMDs have they pulled out of the Iraqi theatre thus far?

I'm sorry...?, I thought I heard you say NONE.

If Saddam and his sons needed to be removed, it could have been done without spending 1600 American lives and over 50,000 wounded.

Oh, but wait.  That would have been against the law too.

The plain fact is that we don't have any more business being in Iraq than we did in the Balkans.  The difference is that the UN/NATO effort in the Balkans wasn't a violation of international law or an act of aggressive conquest, which the war in Iraq is.

To say that this war is on for any other reason than to capture and control territory for the purpose of controlling major oil supplies is living with your head in the sand.

Bush and company are flushing America lives down the toilet for oil so that they never have to live in a house like yours.  In their view, your sons and daughters aren't even worth the time it takes to put a real signature on an "I killed your kid, he'll be home soon" letter.

There is no benefit to average Americans that will result from this war.

 :?

[ironglow]

Iraq..a war of conquest...HAW..HAW..How come Tom delay isn't the president of Iraq and Barney Frank the foreign secretary of Iraq  ?  Wake up...the Iraqis are running their own contry and doing it more democratically than it has EVER been done...
 
     Sure; send them to war ill equipped...how well would they have done with the parsimonious provisions of the Clinton administration...

    Taking some of you guys at your word....I guess we should just sit here and let the terrorists take "pot-shots" at us like they did in the original bombing of the WTC, the Khobar towers and the USS Cole..
   
  Praise God that when the same terrorists tried their little 9/11 stunt...we had a President with some testosterone...

[FWiedner]

Running their own country...?

That's rich, a truly good one.

How many Americans are propping them up while they "run their own country"?

WTC, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Ruby Ridge, Waco..."terrorists" come in all shapes and sizes.  I guess it only matters when they don't work for your government.

...and exactly how much testosterone does it take to let people who work for your friends kill 3,000 of your countrymen?

 :?

[ironglow]

FW;
  Such a disjointed, illogical thought process doesn't require a reply...it speaks for itself...

[FWiedner]

How come Tom delay isn't the president of Iraq and Barney Frank the foreign secretary of Iraq?

Praise God that when the same terrorists tried their little 9/11 stunt...

FW;
  Such a disjointed, illogical thought process doesn't require a reply...it speaks for itself...

You got that right.

 :roll:

[powderman]

IRONGLOW. Agreed Sir. POWDERMAN.    

[Leverdude]

I support our troops fulfilling their mission, whatever that may be. Doesn't mean I agree with that mission, only that I'm very proud of the job they do when called upon.
I support our going to Iraq but not our continued occupation or our forcing our political ideals down their throat.

Cant honestly compare them to doctors who do what they think is right. Our troops do as theyre ordered, their own opinions dont count for much as far as where they go or what theyre asked to do.

I dont care about WMD either, we needed to take Iraq for no reason beyond the fact that our words must mean something. We let Saddam off because he said we could put inspectrors in there, dont matter what we find now, he violated that agreement & the only mistake we made was waiting so long & using WMD to justify our actions.

This whole Iraq thing is a big political show & Americans are dieing.
We accomplished our objective, now bring the men home.

Not the troops fault but rather the current administrations.
We may think we're doing a good & wonderful thing but theres many in the global community who dont see much difference in what we're doing & what the Soviet Union once did. Conquer a weeker nation & force your preffered type of Gov't on them. & Just like the ex Soviet Union the only way we can make believe its working is to keep them under our thumb.

We pull out & they'll be back where they were, for better or worse, before we entered the picture. What did our men die for at that point?

 If they were ready for what we have to offer they would have attained a representative Gov't on their own.

I'v no problem kicking the snot out of someone what deserves it. I wont be wiping his face when I'm done tho. Black eyes, fat lips & blown up countries all serve to remind the offending party why they shouldn't do what they did.

I'm supprised every pissant country on the globe doesn't push us into a fight, they would all be better off considering our policy of rebuilding & educating our enemies countries & people. Not to mention bringing in technology they wouldn't likely attain themselves for decades.

Seems our conservative side is more than willing to kick some butt so that our liberal side can spread our tax dollars around giving what amounts to welfare to the enemy.  :?

Theres right & wrong on both sides of this fence but people shouldn't assume that we dont support the troops because we dont aprove of how they are being used, & they are being used, as political pawns at this point so our Gov't can refute anyone saying we acted too harshly. Now they can stand proud & say "Sure we attacked Iraq, but look at all the good we're doing now" BS, thats what I think.
Our military is for our defence, once a threat is nuetralized their job is done.

[Brett]

I'm not so sure that the threat has been neutralized until the country has a stable government in place.  If we pull out now what is to prevent another dictator, crazier than Saddam, with wild ideas about a 'religious' jehad against the evil western empire from taking the reins?  

unfortunately war and politics is no longer as clear cut, black and white as it once was.

[magooch]

Mr. Fwied,
When you are elected President of this country, I can't wait to criticize everything you do and I especially can't wait to assign nefarious motives to every decision you make.

[FWiedner]

Mr. Magooch;

If a man fails to question every single action and every single motive of a public official, especially one in high office, he may be either a fool or a traitor but he is, without question, a poor citizen.

I have a right to be critical, and when W gets tired of it I 'm sure he won't hesitate to accuse me of some heinous crime, set my house on fire, and then shoot my children when they try to run.

That'll show me, won't it?

As for me ever being elected to anything, you should pray to whatever diety that you can that such a thing might never come about.

 :shock:

[big medicine]

Name one war where our troops have had every thing they needed, had correct intelligence ect. WWI troops were slaughtered wholesale due to poor tactics, but they got the job done. WWII saw large scale numbers of troops killed because of poor intelligence, and poor equpt esp at the start of the war. My Dad said they had WWI ammo that went bang part of the time, the sherman tanks we considered death traps because they never failed to light when they were hit. Korea found us ill equpt and undermanned. Vietnam the intell wasnt always the best. The first gulf war was short, had it dragged on it would have had its share of problems. Now days our list of KIAs is small compared to any operation in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. 1600 KIAs for the total time we have been there is small in comparision to the first few hours of D-Day, or Tarawa, Iwo Jima, The bulge, ect. So somebody is doing something right. You can debate the reasons why we should or shouldnt be there till the cows come home, but the fact is WE ARE THERE and we need to finish the damn job, or those 1600 lives were pi$$ed away for nothing, just like the lives of my buddies that were killed in Beirut. We get young kids into these Sh$% holes because of the media, and politics, and pull out because we dont have the stomach to finish what we started or to do what needs to be done to get the job finished. Somalia is another prime example of how were went there to "save the starving women and children" we got a bunch of young Americans KIA and left with out finishing the job. I dont want to see another American kid KIA!! But I sure as he!! dont want to see these lives wasted that have already given all they had to see a job through. If we dont finish this now, we are doomed to repeat it again, just as we have for the last 20 years.

[Leverdude]

I'm not so sure that the threat has been neutralized until the country has a stable government in place.  If we pull out now what is to prevent another dictator, crazier than Saddam, with wild ideas about a 'religious' jehad against the evil western empire from taking the reins?  

unfortunately war and politics is no longer as clear cut, black and white as it once was.

The threat Saddam posed, the one that got us there is nuetralized. It would be nice to think we have them licked for good & set them up to be our buddies forever. Just never works that way, not even with normal civilized folks, let alone these guys. We might civilize some, there were always some peacful people there. But they aint the problem & it wont end because we made Iraq free.

War & politics was never clear cut, however not until the recent past has world opinion meant so much. Thats why I said its a show & before the last act we need to be seen as benefactors instead of victors, liberators & not conquerors.  Buncha political BS, we sensed a real threat & after exausting all diplomatic measures we went in & nuetralized the threat.
Best thing we coulda done was walk out while the place was still smoldering.

Biggest problem I have with reconstruction & all the other military aid & training is I'm pretty dern sure that some day, once our guys are finally home, there gonna topple whatever puppet gov't we leave them. Then they'll have all the goodies we gave them & tought them to use against us.

History repeats itself, thats a fact. It used to take a few generations to happen tho, nowadays it only takes a few years.

[powderman]

BIGMEDICINE. Amen my friend. POWDERMAN.    

[ShadowMover]

I agree with FWeidner. Supporting the troops means giving them what they need to win a war, and supporting them or their widows and children when and if they come home. It doesn't mean sending them off to useless wars, any more than supporting a Fire Department means lighting buildings afire. We have to be smart enough to pick politicians that know when and where to fight. SH was a bad guy. How many bad guys do we have in the world that are worse than him?   Dozens at least. First on the list would be the tin pot dictator and murderer of North Korea. Strange thing though, he is all sharp edges and doesn't have any oil, and his army doesn't threaten Israel.  If you are building empires it makes sense to pick up the easy high value countries first and save the tough thorny ones till later. Are we in the empire building business? I hope not but it looks that way. The President's reasoning on his attack on Iraq is clearly flawed, and the morphing of the reasoning to fighting terrorism and then to exporting freedom to the Iraqi people is quite transparent as a lie. Either that or he and all his staff are stupid.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and call him a lier.  This is my opinion, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind.  IMHO you can't export democracy, and you can't build the Taj Mahal with mud bricks.

[fe352v8]

When I came home from Viet Nam, my grandfather a WWI veteran gave me a book of KiplingÂ’s poems.  The war in Iraq brought to mind two from his Epitaphs of War


Common Form

If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.

A Dead Statesman

I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[ShadowMover]

This other poem by Kipling seems rather appropriate too:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

[ironglow]

poetry;


     Lay of the last Minstrel, by Sir Walter Scott

   " Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
        who never to himself hath said,
     This is my own, my native land..."


   Shadow;
  Our troops are all volunteers, there because they want to be, many of them enlisting since the war on terror began. If you truly support them, you will support their decision to fight the Muslim extremeists..
  obviously, if you don't support these troops decision to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever such terrorists are harbored...you are NOT SUPPORTING those troops.

   You analogy of supporting fire fighters by starting fires is obviously, extremely flawed.

    Your arguments about KJ Il not having oil (to impune the President's motives) is an old Leftist/ Marxist shibboleth that is worn out by now, so forget that old mirage !
  Of course Il doesn't threaten Israel as much as he does S. korea, Japan etc , but there are other people ( China, Japan, S. Koreaetc) interested in exerting pressures on him... do you understand international diplomacy ?
  Sometimes you have to "know when to hold 'em".
 
   DO you think we should abandon Israel ? Israel is the only bastion of liberty in the whole area..
    Protecting Israel is common logic to any western mind unless it is  clouded with anti-Semitism...

    Big Medicine is pretty  much " right on ".

[magooch]

Ironglow, I think you've been reading my mind.  Scary in there isn't it.

[wareagleguy]

alright ironglow...

at the risk of getting flamed for this statement I must respond.  I have many times got my rear end in trouble posting in this forum for some of my statements but it's statements like yours that chaps my butt.

I am sick of hearing anyone telling me that I am not a true american if I don't support the president or his policies.  Which one of his policies is the the death of US citizens (our troops).  If you are like me and see this conflict as nothing more than an agenda for certain US companies to make billions of dollars then this war is nothing but an unlawful waste of human lives.  Yes, I support the troops.  We need them.  Those people are dying.  That is why a question why are we doing this.

[ShadowMover]

" Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land..."

 This sounds more like a rallying cry to man the borders and keep out invaders rather than a reason to travel half way around the world and impose 'democracy' on a bunch of ingrates, who will revert to their old ways the moment our troops lift off their soil. I'm all for the last line of your quoted poem, too bad we are not doing it.

"Shadow;
Our troops are all volunteers, there because they want to be, many of them enlisting since the war on terror began. If you truly support them, you will support their decision to fight the Muslim extremeists..
obviously, if you don't support these troops decision to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever such terrorists are harbored...you are NOT SUPPORTING those troops."

So I'm NOT SUPPORTING those troops eh?  I suppose anyone who disagrees with you is a slacker and un-American too?  The fact they are volunteers has nothing to do with this discussion. The mission they were SENT on is what I question.   The Afghanistan mission had validity, as the guy who attacked us was using it as his base.  SH was a brutal tyrant, but he was not harming US interests, and his regime was contained.  



"You analogy of supporting fire fighters by starting fires is obviously, extremely flawed."  
 I think it's right on the money. All our ' fire fighters' are tied up in a junkyard fire called Iraq, which we applied the match to. Now if anyone questions why we are burning the junkyard, they get called names for "NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS"  

Your arguments about KJ Il not having oil (to impune the President's motives) is an old Leftist/ Marxist shibboleth that is worn out by now, so forget that old mirage !

Oh, it's a mirage now, and leftist marxism?  You can not dismiss the obvious motives as easily as that.  You remind me of the Wizard of Oz saying to Dorothy, "Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain". Ask yourself, "Who Benefits"?
 
"Of course Il doesn't threaten Israel as much as he does S. korea, Japan etc , but there are other people ( China, Japan, S. Koreaetc) interested in exerting pressures on him... do you understand international diplomacy ?
Sometimes you have to "know when to hold 'em". "

Yes I know about international diplomacy: and what we are talking about is 'knowing when to hold them'!

"DO you think we should abandon Israel ? Israel is the only bastion of liberty in the whole area.. "

Some Palestinians might argue with what you define as a bastion of liberty.  I think we should do what is best for the interests of the United States, not Israel. If they happen to coincide, great; if the don't, let's not lie about it. Israel doesn't seem to have any problem separating it's interests from ours; they spy on us, sell our technology to the Chinese, attack our warships, lobby our legislators, and take our money as well. BTW criticizing Israel is not the same as anti-semitism. Opposition to Israel's existence is called anti-Zionism. Calling someone anti-semetic if they question Israel's motives is a misleading tactic, often used to stop rational discussion.  It's in the same league as calling immigration control anti-Hispanic.

"Protecting Israel is common logic to any western mind unless it is clouded with anti-Semitism..."
_________________
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.." Jesus (John 8:32)

"By way of deception, thou shalt do war" The Mossad, (Israeli spy agency)

[fe352v8]

Why we are there, so far. (or remember the Gulf of Tonkin)

If the UN, is to be relevant we must enforce itsÂ’ sanction.  Even, without the sanction of the UN?

Iraq had massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction. Rumsfeld even said that he knew exactly where the weapons are. Where are they?

Iraq could attack the United States within a few minutes with its weapons. Where are those weapons and the delivery systems? Every U.S. claim for an Iraqi weapons delivery system remains unproven.

Iraq was involved with the September 11 2001 plots and was conspiring with Al Qaeda to attack the United States. No credible evidence has ever been given for this claim, yet he continues to link the invasion of Iraq as part of the war against terrorism.
 
Selling Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Where is the money?
 
The citizens of Iraqis would welcome U.S. invasion as an end to the tyranny of Hussein. This is hospitality?
 
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. One credible statement out of seven

I find it disconcerting when a leader gives all these reason for a war, and only one has proven credible, We went to war to save this country from the tyranny of itsÂ’ leader, and spread democracy.  If this is the only true reason we went to war, who is next, China, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea Â… ?

We went to war on 5 falsehoods, 1 half truth, UN sanctions, and 1 truth, Saddam was a tyrant.

Call me unpatriotic, liberal, leftist, whatever but blindly supporting a leader whose policies could result in yours or my children, or grand children coming home in a box or maimed is crap, especially when a majority of the reasons for those policies are, if not lies, are at the very least questionable.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[Leverdude]

Fe, Fweid & Shadow Mover are on the money in my eyes.
Some here I think would back Mr Bush no matter what. Thats ok, they are entitled to their opinion.
Its my opinion that for every American life lost after we got Saddam the guilt lies squarely on our administration.

Its one thing to nuetralize a percieved threat, its another entirely to occupy a country & change their entire political system into something you like better.

For those who ask "What about 9/11" We lost a few thousand folks, tragic to be sure but I'd bet we've exacted more than 10 times that much revenge on Iraq & they werent even responsible.

We mind our own buisness & they'll start killing each other again & forget all about us, they only hate us because of exactly what we are doing in Iraq. They see us as a threat to their way of life & rightfully so.

We need to shut up our borders, bring the men home & keep our noses out of places they dont belong.

[big medicine]

We can go back to the Spanish American War. What were we doing there? Spain had nothing to do with the Maine blowing up, and that was why we went to war. Bad intel, lies spread by the media.

WWI, we get involved in 1917 to "make the world safe for democracy" "the war to end all wars" that was why Americans went to Europe and died. again the media tells how bad things are, and we need to fix them. We bailed out England.

WWII, FDR is telling the American public he will not send our boys to fight another war in Europe, all the while plotting with Churchill for US involvement. The debate will go on forever as to being able to stop the attach on Dec 7th. Who knew what? did they let it happen? At any rate the war in the Pacific was justified we had been attacked. But why the war in Europe? Once again we bailed out England. WE would have ended up fighting Hittler any way, it just happened before he planned it. For us it probable saved lives. Had he the time to produce his wonder weapons in quanity we would have been in a world of hurt.

Korea, we get involved to stop the spread of communism. And fail to deliver the final blow, we wont do what it takes to win final victory. It is still static 50 years later.

Vietman, Once again we go to war to stop the spread of communism. And fail to deliver the final blow, again we wont do what it takes to win final victory, and pull out after losing over 50,000 American lives.

Then we get into the era of the "Peace keeping missions" We start the policy of sending troops into every little Shi$ hole on the face of the earth, to stop asshol#$ from killing each other, who have been killing each other since time began. The media plays a big part here. Showing pictures every night on the news of the atrocities, how we need to go and make the world safe for democracy, save the women and children. So we send in the troops with their hands tied to be targets for every assho#$ how has an agenda and blames the US for all the wrongs in the world. And US servicemen come home in flag draped boxes. Then the media starts to question why are we there, we dont belong there, they dont want us there, we should leave. They got what they wanted, pictures of dead GIs being drug through the streets by stone age idiots dancing in the streets. We still have troops on peace keeping missions in Europe that Clinton was going to bring home in a year. Why are they still there?

The first Gulf War was over quick Saddam folded, and we never finished it to keep our muslim friends happy, what did that get us?

911 happened because of a group of people that hate us. Did Saddam have anything to do with it? Who knows? Yea they have not found the smoking gun to connect him, but it doesnt mean he didnt have anything to do with it. And just how did we get there? Once again people forget about the media's role in all of this. All we heard about for years was how Saddam had WMDs. "Everyone" knew it, he was moving them around, and wouldnt let in the UN inspectors until he moved them bla bla bla. And if we didnt do something he would use those WMDs on us bla bla bla. And the UN mandate bla bla bla. He sure had enough time to move them to Syria. Maby he never had them, but that sure as he!! was not what the UN inspertors and the news media was saying to sway the public. Once again the news media questions every thing, they got what they wanted, dead GI's.

Did President Bush have good intel? It is easy to be a side line quarterback after the fact. But all they had to go with is what they had at the time. When have we ever had good intel? It's ok to go up the road it isnt mined. They dont have any big guns up there. It's only boys and old men. The Naval gunfire will take out everthing, you can go onto the beach standing up. ect ect Intel is more of a guessing game with partial out dated info, sometimes they get it right, but ask anyone who has been involved in an operation if it went according to plan? Had he not done something and some bomb blew up NYC people would hang him out to dry saying you knew he had the WMDs and didnt do anything to stop it.

As far as profit goes. Name one war where someones buddy didnt make a few million selling planes, ships, ect.

I predict that we will loose our stomach to do what needs to be done. Because we dont want to upset some pi$$ ant 3rd world shi$ hole. We will pull out leaving the job unfinished after spending billions and billions of dollars and leaving a generation of American kids mamed and killed just as we have for the last 50 years. Then with in 5-10 years we will go somewhere else to save the starving women and children. Or stop the genocide. Or go after some a$$hole that blew up the Super Bowl stadium with 70,000 people. we will do this after the media tells us for months of the actrocities showing us pictures of dead and starving or tortured children. Then when we get there, and they have their pictures of dead Americans being mutilated they will ask what we are doing there. And we will leave that job unfinished.

[ironglow]

Some here say that there are some folks that will back the  Bush administration..no matter what..
   I am not one of them , although such may exist...
    Just as there are some who will condemn the Bush administration...no matter what !

   If I take some at face value, the US should become neutral/isolationist..
  That may work well for Switzerland or the Danes...because if things really get bad..someone (e.g. US or Uk) will pull their "fat out of the fire".

   If the lone world superpower becomes a Liberal/pacifist/neutralist/isolationist, giveup-itis power...   who will handle the tin pot dictators that invade and brutalize their neighbors as Saddam Hussein did to Kuwait...Hitler did to Austria & Poland of the Empire of Japan did to Korea & China ?

   I truly don't believe that most here would want us to be a cowardly, give-up nation..
  But do I believe that there are a number that harbor much (mostly unfounded) hatred for the Bush administration...

    BRDavis;
   Your note about US companies making millions of dollars etc,etc
   ..read what I wrote about the old Marxist/ Communist shibboleths...

[Leverdude]

I dont think we should be nuetral in all things or pacifist either. I just dont think wasting our time & men after the wars won do anyone any good. As Big Med said all it does is get more people killed until we accept the inevitable & pull out. Why not learn from our mistakes & leave after our goals are met. In this case it was to remove Saddam from power. Heck Bush even gave him the option of leaving on his own. Push aside all the political hogwash & the reason we went was he couldnt be tolerated any more. Now we're done there, we've acomplished our objective.

I support our President as much as I can but when global politics comes before American lives I draw a line.

Its not appropriate to compare this to the world wars as Saddam wasn't a real threat to anyone not right next door to him. Germany & Japan both had much more military capability & Industrial resources than any country in the Mid east.

Its not a far stretch of the imagination to paint the US in the same light as Communist Russia or even Hitler at this point in history.
We travel the globe looking for pissant countries that we can obliterate because of their tyranny & then force our customs & type of government on them.

Why not go after England? They've been occupying thru threat & use of force Northern Ireland for how many hundreds of years?
The very way we choose who to let be tyrants & who we wont allow to do it speaks volumes.

If theyre a white Christian country we let them alone, if theyre a poor muslim or asian country tho, that seems to make a huge difference.

Personally I dont see much difference between our present desire to spread democracy, weather the recipients want it or not & the ex Soviets desire to do the same with Communism & I dont think the rest of the world does either. If the worlds on our side then why arent they fighting?
It seems we're separarting ourselves from our former allies & that isn't likely a positive thing either. All we really have anymore is the UK & to be quite honest theyre not throwing themselves into it like we are.

Iron glow, I like you & respect your opinions & just want to say here & now that nothing I post should be taken as an insult towards you. We just dissagree big time on this thing. I'm not questioning your patriotism & would be proud to call you a friend. Your convictions & thoughts are unwavering &, to me anyway, that speaks of a man of integrity.

Its just my opinion that if we really want this to go away, then we need to defeat the enemy & let him rot in the desert or rebuild his country at his own expense.
They hate us for importing western ideals into their society & charity is one of our ideals.

Pull out & let them rot, if in 10 or 20 or 50 years they threaten us again (& they will) We do it again. The bulk of our losses have been after the fact, once we declared victory, when our men should have been home.
We have a MILITARY, an Army, an Airforce a Navy & Marine Corp. They arent police or peace keepers, they are warriors & as such shouldn't be expected to rebuild the countries of their enemies.

I gotta get some work done around here, later.  

[ironglow]

Lever..
    I agree with some of your thoughts...but of course not all..
   
  The UK / Ireland question is a sticky path...between those two; we really shouldn't interfere there.
   It is my understanding that the people of Ulster vote in referendum anew every 10 years as to what status they want to hold vis-a-vis the UK or Ireland...they have so far chosen the UK.
    Doesn't seem right to usurp the rights of the majority in order to favor a minority.
    If someday, the elections turn the other way...then a transfer could be initiated..Seems logical to me !

  We only aid Christian people ?
     What was that little wrangle in Kosovo and Bosnia ?
  Seems like we were helping the Serbs (Muslims) against the Christians in that one !
   Now I, as with many conservatives, did not think that was a particularly clever move at the time; but you didn't find us condemning the military or their task at hand !
   We were vindicated in our opinion on 9/11.
 
      We know how any condemnation of the military can cause a lowering of morale, usually with concurrent loss of lives..

   Yes, in some obtuse ways we could be compared to the USSR or Germany in our evangelistic zeal, but the flaw in the theory is that there is NO moral equivalence.
   Surely, anyone with a modicum of gray matter realizes that "our system", that we are offering to introduce is not the same thing as Communism or Nazism...
   Only the most rabid leftist radical would be  attempting to coorelate a moral equivalence between the Soviets and us !

   I presume one could consider us wrong if they honestly believed that we are offering nothing better that Saddam's death camps, torture chambers and rape rooms...or the same with Communism & Nazism !

    I believe that what many folks are overlooking is the "big picture", that the radical Muslim world ( a large percent of the whole) is at war with us...even if we try to deny it.
    They don't realize how vulnerable free, capitalist societies are..
A couple more blows like 9/11 and we could be a third world country...
 
  Iran is struggling to build a line of nuclear weapons and may well do so within the next 6 mos to 2 years. Most intelligence agencies  agree that those radical Mullahs will almost certainly give nuclear weapons to the terrorists, since they themselves are terrorists.
 
     Are we willing to back the troops if they have to go into Iran ?

  The global nature of the terrorist network is such that we cannot afford to "pick and choose" all our battles, sometimes we must "strike while the iron is hot !".
 
   Remember, despite all the political rhetoric..It has not been proven that SH had weapons of mass destruction...but it also has not been proven that he did  not have them..
 
   Suspiciously; there was no chemical weapons found even though he used them against the Iranians and his own Khurdish citizens a few years earlier..
   Since when do dictators voluntarily give up weapons systems ?
 
  Remember that period of a couple weeks when Muslim Turkey wouldn't allow our 1st AD through their country and convoys were streaming between Iraq and Syria ?
   The 1st AD would have cut off that superhighway...

    I see one saving grace in this conflict:
   There is no draft; therefore no cowards will be required to serve, so they may well not be rioting in the streets as they did a couple decades ago.

   NOTE: We all must admit that cowards exist; while obviously not all who complain about the war are cowards....nevertheless in regards to the former statement I must offer a caveat to all who share in this forum...If the shoe does not fit, you're not obliged to wear it !