War with Iraq

[chikky]

I have a neice in Afganishtan..A newphew headed for the Gulf.  Secet mission(called to active duty, where else could he be headed)
What do you think about going to war (I think we are headed there).?

Read this article from Beverly Becham from the Boston Herald...She explains it better than I ever could....::::


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/bev01172003.htm

How did we get here...What do you think?

I hate it, but will support my President....but I am confused with the "stuff" coming out of the White House

[Jackie G]

Chikky

It's tough, isn't it, I sympathise.

Just so you know, not everyone here in the UK is with Tony Blair and George W on this one either... (not that the will of the people seems to mean anything anymore!)

Jackie
www.iqps.org
Peer Moderator

[möve]

Interesting Article.

Yet is there really no reason? History shows that reasons for wars are ALWAYS economic reasons, never humanitarian or the like. Even if the governments tell you different.

What do you think about this theory:
The US depend on oil which mainly comes from the Saudis. They might cut off their oil and thus another source must be found. Iraq would be a fine source if there was no Saddam regime. Consequence: Get rid of Saddam and have a fallback should the Saudis do s.th. "stupid".

What I do not understand: If Saddam is really the incarnation of evil, for the above reason or for other reasons, why must the lives of thousands of soldiers be put at risk and also of thousands of Iraq civilians - why can't whatever department or bureau capable of doing such a job just send someone out to get rid of this one man?

Moeve  

[countrigal]

I love free speech and free press, but some of the confusion comes from the press itself.  They overhear things, or have secret sources who may or may not know something, and they're quick to put it out there.  Not saying that they knowingly publish lies or mistakes, but in the rush to be the one with the scoop, it's more possible to post things that weren't necessarily meant to be facts out for the world to see.  An example, though not in the public press but the military version of it...  A general, high up in the AF, made a comment to a contemporary about the Air Force shouldn't use the "Hoo-Rah" sound because it belonged to the Army.  This was overheard by someone else, who took it as a fact of what this general wanted done, so policies were written up and the word was passed around that no Air Force personnel could use "Hoo-Rah".  So now committees are working hard to come up with another sound, that doesn't belong to one of the other branches.  Then, 3-4 months later the General realises what has happened and is happening around him and publicly retracts his "statement".  But it never was... it was just him voicing an opinion which someone else took as otherwise.

A lot of what we get out of Washington, IMHO, is similiar.  Someone overheard something, so it must be truth.  In the example of the missing serum in Texas, it would have been simple for someone to have heard one person tell someone else "We've found it" when what they're really saying is that we know where they are, who has them and can expect to have them safe and secure soon.  I think that the press needs to take a little more time to check and verify stories before putting them out for the world to read... give a bit more time between hearing of something and publishing it, so some of this wishy-washiness can be cut out.  Then the politicians need to be forthright in what they do share.

I don't agree with facing Saddam right now myself, but I've heard a lot of information -- not from the press -- and can sort of understand the reasoning in targeting him.  But why now?  That still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.  And my husband is preparing to deploy, even if we don't know when or where yet.  So I'm like all the rest of y'all -- sitting back wondering how many boiling pots we're gonna send our military to watch, and how thin are we planning on stretching our military.

CountriGal
Peer Moderator

[donnap99]

I'm not even sure I have an opinion.  I know there is so much misinformation in the press, so I really hesitate to base my opinion on what may be garbage.  That said, my gut tells me it's right.  Maybe it's a personal overreaction from 9-11...

I do have another thought though.  As I've seen protesters and signs in office windows and what not, I think to myself "Is this going to be my generation's version of Vietnam?"


DonnaP99

[spitfire78]

Frankly, I don't think we should be going to war with Iraq right now - at least not without U.N. sanction.  I think we are wrong to be out there all alone.  Obviously, I can only go by what is reported in the press, and I realize that not all of it is accurate, but that is the only place I can I get information.  I think the President is wrong to pursue this so doggedly without trying peaceable options first.  I also think he is wrong in the tactics he is using with North Korea.  We are already fighting the war on terrorism, we will be fighting Iraq soon (at this point I think it is inevitable because I think this is what Bush wants and he's not going to stop until he gets it), and if we're not careful we'll be entering into conflict with North Korea.  How many different arenas can we handle at one time and what is the possibility that these multiple conflicts could create another world war?  I think this is the exact time that we need to pull back and re-evaluate all of these areas. I think diplomacy and tact could work wonders (at least in the case of North Korea).  No, I don't think diplomacy and tact will work with Hussein, but after all the U.N. inspectors are there right now.  I think we need to give them the chance to do their job and then see where we stand.  

And no, I am not totally against Bush.  Mostly I have no strong feelings either way about him.  I just feel that he is handling this whole thing the wrong way.

That's my opinion.

[patphi]

As far as the press and the information they choose to convey.  I think my husband said it all in a letter to NBC last night.  Here goes:

Bush's Polls Dropping
The tone of Tom Brokaw's voice on the NBC Nightly News was obviously gleeful as he reported that the support for President Bush was dropping on January 22nd.

The lower support in the recent polls is coming after a concerted effort of the entire NBC, ABC, and CBS combined Networks  to "inform" the American people about how unjust going to war with Iraq is.

You have gone out of your way to give the Hollywood Egomaniacs, The ones who are all in favor of the legalization of the drugs they use, and the highly paid "Champions of Human Rights" who need to create crisis so that their speaking fees can remain high, a platform to air views about something they know nothing about, so that they can get their picture and name on National TV.  

You report polls taken using people that have been targeted to be in opposition to the President. Polls conducted by companies that you are paying after giving them the goals you want to be reflected.
 
It is about time that you start The Nightly News, The Today Show, and the News Specials with a disclaimer "The views, comments, and content of this Program has been edited to express the sole opinion of the Management and Staff of NBC, and General Electric and any semblance to fact is purely coincidental.

I'm not comfortable with going to war.  I have a son in the Navy who just came back from a 6 month deployment to the mid-east and I'm not anxious for him to go back after the horror stories he has told.  We are the ugly, hated Americans.

Pat In Orlando

[lillibelle]

I am German, and have been married to an American for 16 years now. My husband served in the US Army for 20 years and retired three years ago. I am glad he is retired. We have been living in Germany for almost 14 years.

He worked a lot of overtime during the first Gulf War, but his unit never deployed to the Gulf. He was not so lucky during Bosnia. He spent 6 months there - fortunately in Sarajevo at the international headquarters with all the bigshots.

As both my husband and me are very interested in current events, we have been having a lot of discussions about the situation. I am opposed to the war, because I think it only serves to keep the media from asking Bush and some members of his cabinet questions about a company called Enron. If I am not mistaken, Bush had a track record for shmoozing with the oil industry, and that seems to be the main reason for this foray to the Gulf. Who knows, maybe he even wants to finish the job his father left undone a few years ago?

Be that as it may, I do not think that a war is a good idea - at least not the way the administration is going about it. I think they do not have the military intelligence to really understand the consequences of their actions. Not too long ago the US helped the Taliban regime to power in Afghanistan against the Sovjet-installed regime. 20 years later, the Taliban regime turned into a snake that bit the hand that nourished it in the most violent way. If I am not mistaken, the US also supported Saddam Hussein in more ways than one during the war Iraq fought against Iran. I think that the greatest mistake the recent US-administrations have made is to underestimate their friends and foes. When Rumsfeld calls countries like Germany and France "Old Europe" and considers them has-been, it is quite unwise - not that he is known for his tact.

My parents are refugees who lost their homes and several loved ones during and as a result of WWII. Our family was separated by the Wall, and I was lucky to grow up in the free part of Germany. I experienced life behind the Iron Curtain during visits with my aunt - and it was depressing. I am grateful that thanks to the Americans I had a chance to grow up free and in a democracy. Many Americans died for democracy and the freedom of speech, but right now the Bush-administration is taking away this freedom of speech from sovereign governments here in Europe as well as organizations like NATO and the UN, because some happen to have a different opinion on this matter.

I personally am pleased that Schröder stands by his decision not to actively participate in a war. Not only are the German armed forces very weak with regards to their equipment, but I am afraid that involvement in war might only result in terrorist retaliations against the countries who fight against Saddam Hussein. In the 1980s, I experienced terrorist attacks against Americans here in Germany first hand , and it is something I do not want to experience again.

I agree that Saddam Hussein is dangerous; I think there are a number of Muslim heads of state who feel the same way about him. Why not use the resources to take only him out, and not cause something whose consequences non one can or wants to foresee. If the CIA and the military intelligence are really so superior, it should not be a problem to take only him out and spare the lives of many people.

Lillibelle who believes that war is not (always) the answer

[juspeachy]

For more information on this subject, check out this link.

"Why We Know Iraq is Lying" A Column by Dr. Condoleezza Ricel


JusPeachy

[bethalize]

Your link was dead for me but I think I've got the page's new location from a search.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html


Bethalize
Peer Moderator

[kimmid]

Great article.  Thank you.  Very informative yet succinct.  While I certainly don't relish the idea of war, I firmly believe that Saddam must go, for the well-being of his people and the others to whom his regime poses a threat.  He has lied for so long and has not been held accountable.  Unfortunately, accountability will now have a higher price than it needed to.  Cooperation on his part, either now or in the past dozen chances, would have avoided all this.  He will not make a regime change easy, of course, therefore the need for troop buildup, even if they are not all used.  Rumors now say that many around him are working to remove him themselves, thus avoiding a war.  I think that would be great and pray it is what happens.

I  am positive that Ms. Rice, President Bush and others have far more information than those in the media or Hollywood.  If what we heard in the "news" and from celebrities (really, please tell me why I should pay more attention to their political views than those who actually are involved) was the whole truth and nothing but the truth, what would stop Saddam and others from using our own information against us?  There is more going on than we know and frankly, that is how it should be.

[chevygirl55]

I agree.  I do not like the idea of going to war however, this is a monster who must be stopped.  I fully support Mr. Bush's decision.  It is not one he is taking lightly or making without input from many good sources.  

If you haven't read the book "Misson Compromised" by Oliver North, you might enjoy it.  It is a novel but based on reality.  It is very interesting coming from the experiences of Mr. North.

My heart, respect, and admiration go to all those who are fighting the war and their families waiting at home.  To those involved, we do appreciate you and the freedoms you defend that make it possible for me to post my opinions here whether they be the popular viewpoint or not.

chevygirl55