Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

48hrs left?

0 helpful
91 replies

by jkaras

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
I know this is not the type of discussion for this forum although it has been discussed previously rather heatedly. I went out for St. Patrick's Day to see some good bands at a local club. I had a great time drinking and enjoying the concert with all types of people, I lost track of what's going on in the world due to missing Bush's State of the Union Address. As I woke up slightly hung over at work I saw the headlines. Bush declares 48hr till compliance or else. As I sit here at work I'm trying to imagine, if I had 48hrs to live or die, what would I do with that time? Would I complete a life long dream, would I say the important things to the people that matter, druken stupor, run and hide, or do nothing? Also as I think about myself whatabout the people that are going to fight and possibly die, how are they preparing for this eventuality? Whether you believe for the war or against it, nothing in a couple of hours is going to be the same forever. All comments and opinions are welcome, so share.

91 replies

by jardinier

The decision has been made. The war will start. I think the only sensible comment that can be made at this point is to hope and pray that it will be a short war, that civilian and military casualties will be minimal, and its objectives be achieved.
While people of different persuasions will be praying to Gods of different names, we can only hope that in the deepest parts of their hearts there is a common hope for a more peaceful, more tolerant and more stable world in the long term.

Christians, Muslims, agnostics and others must in our very interconnected world learn to share the planet harmoniously. If war is necessary to achieve this longer term goal, then so be it.

by jellimonsta

I am reminded of a dishabled looking man with a sandwich board pacing the streets ranting incoherently. If I felt my time was drawing to a close with the ever approaching military confrontation, I think I would kick back and watch every Monty Pythonepisode and movie I could get my hands on.
I am Christian and very much against war. I am also against the ideals held by those in power in a number of the middle eastern (and eastern) countries. While the current regime does need to end, I do notthink killing innocent men, women and children is the best means to do this.
Unfortunately, it seems there is no way to do this that could be determined as the "best" means.
I too hope and pray there are minimal confrontations from Iraq nationalsand military units and that the tyrant (Hussein) is removed from this situation. I guess what will be done, will be done!

by rezuma

violence is never the answer.
"violence is the only solution of the incompetent"
"violencia es la unica solucion del incompetente"

As an IT person i realize that the human has progress a lot in the science but nothing at all in the social behavior

by road-dog

defines peace as the absence of opposition? Then your only option is vigorous self defense. You can have escalation of responses to their actions, but if they resort to violence, then you have only 3 options; accept injury, withdraw, (setting yourself up for further aggression) or to fight back.

That's a cute and pithy adage, but it crumbles quickly under scrutiny and scenario testing.

Like any absolute statement, it is false.

by gamer

I always love these peolpe that cannot think past the violence of the poeple that are risking their own lives to free others. Always complaining but never giving an answer to the probem. Sometimes, unfortunitly, violence is the ONLY answer that these types of people understand. It has been 12 years of lies with no end in site. saddam has killed well over 1 million innocent people, started 4 wars, used chemical and bio weapons on his own peolpe and you say we shouldn't use violence to remove this A$$ from power.

Freedom comes with a price. Unfortunitly, many peolpe like you take it for granted.

by guruofdos

Just time to install XP and get it patched! Mind you, it does need another week to get it stable!

by admin

A New Martyrdom?
A New World Order?
A New Era of Hatred?
A New Era of Peace?
A New Extremely Funny Episode of South Park?
A New Era of Unprecidented Safety?
A New Time of Balance and Democracy In The Middle East?
A New Era of Plentiful Cheap Energy?
A New Era of Economic Prosperity for Both The United States and Iraq?

This is a weapons testing exercise in Iraq. There is no chance of retribution in high intensity conflict here in the U.S. - we are quite safe from this. If Saddam really wants to seal his place in the hearts of large groups of humans on this planet, he'll take a cue from an impossible battle that the Jews lost against the Romans years ago. Masada. Lose the Battle- win the war.
I doubt he'll do it though. Perhaps he's just part of the moving target of people we never actually seem to be able to kill when we say we will in that area... Kohmeini, Hussein, Bin Laden, Hussein.... did someone miss a turn?

Anyway, I actually am glad we waited this long and now if they want to do their show of horror before the weapons pass their due date, well, that's how it is. Even the Pope has no influence here. At least at this point it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Good thing the UN disarmed them first, because a lot less people will die that way.

by jardinier

That is the real worry: not the war itself, but the total unpredictability of the repercussions.

For some reason as I posted my first response something deep inside prompted me to make the most positive statement that I could. I unashamedly wept while I was typing that posting: I suppose in sympathy for the soldiers and civilians who will be killed or maimed.

I like your analogy of Masada. I, too, doubt very much that Hussein will be caught. Whilst being a ruthless, callous psychopath, heis also as cunning as a fox.

by mallardtooxx

I am sad that we must fight. I am not ashamed of the choice being made, nor do I think it is the wrong thing to do. I believe Saddam will throw whatever he has at us and our allies, I think he will kill, maime and destroy anything and everything in his path. He is now a caged animal with his back against the wall. Back a dog into a corner and look him in the eye, what do you see? Wild and unrepressed fear. If you look at saddam you see the same thing. He knows we are coming, he knows we are near. he will not be a martyr, nor will he be alive at the end of this conflict.
I am positive of only one thing at this point, we must go on. There is truly nothing we can do but watch and wait at this point. There will be reprisals and there will be innocents lost and for that I am truly greaving. However if the world wants to be free of tyranny then the tyrants must be deposed that is the simple truth of the matter. Kim Jung-ill is next you wait and see.

-duck

by road-dog

My Predictions:

As our forces close in, Saddam will be ousted by his inner circle in exchange for their own futures. I believe that he will die in the process. His inner circle will have a document shredding that will make Enron green with envy. These same men who were the instruments of Saddam's will will fall over themselves in trying to distance themselves from the activities of Iraq's government. I suspect that the Nuremburg defense will be exercised by many.

The atrocities of this regime will become public in a big way, fueled by the very competitive media outlets and teams of reporters.

The US and other coalition members will be vindicated in the eyes of the civilized world. France will deny any connection to the vast amounts of weapons and material found and blame the paper trail for these items on a CIA plot to disgrace them for their obstruction of the war.

by ron vought

Although I don't push war as a way to repair all conflicts, all forms of diplomacy to this point have failed since September of last year to resolve this issue.

With this present situation as it is, I believe that as was stated to James Bond while tied down to a table with a laser nearly ready to sever him, Goldfinger declared: "I don't expect you to talk...I expect you to die..."

Time's up and the game is over. In the end, perhaps a great deal of information will be uncovered that certain countries and certain corporation had their fingers ( and support) overseas to help escalate this world event.

Wait and see.

by mallardtooxx

For sale- 1 like new french rifle never been fired only dropped once, will sell to anyone for a couple of francs and a copy of a milli vanilli album.

I tend to agree with road dog on this one. i think that many people have missed what was actually a master stroke of diplomacy on George and the boys (spain and UK) part. By allowing the fire to be fueled by this new resolution he effectivley made everyone forget that the original 1441 gave him authority to do what he is doing now; just he had to wait on the time frame. The french, germans, and russians are all beginning to back peddle because they know they have been beaten. It is all beginning to look as if this war is going to happen of that there is no question. The difference isthis will vindicate not only the coalition members but george himself; I have said for years he is not as dense as ppl think he is.
As for the french, hell with em, they will continue to hate us and that is fine. I say we ship the torch from the statue of liberty back and give ole libby the worlds largest American flag to hold on to. Of course the french would bitch because we AMERICANIZED the torch, but what else can you expect from them?

-duck

by dcosgrove

I have been trying to avoid these post due to the international aspect of this forum. Germany has, at this point, committed support services to our forces and France has appologized in advance for any connections between them and Iraq's chemical weapon program. I have also heard that 15 Iraqi soldiers have allready surrendered. When an agency like the U.N. becomes this stale can it possibly serve a purpose? This has been such a farse from the beginning. The entire security council was moreconcerned with covering there a**es or seeing who they could squeez for a better deal. Just another example of why these "perfect" forms of world government can't work. People are not perfect, especially politicians. By the way, I would personally like to thank anyone from the U.K. for Tony Blair. I appreciate how this must affect your country and why it is so unpopular, I'm sure the reaction here would be similar if the tables were turned. Rest assured, though, I think our leaders would just as boldly stand by your side.

by sullyman

Well said Duck?

It is a time of sadness and uncertainty, because the snake has now been backed into a corner. There will be many lives lost on both sides of the battle, but my most of my prayers are with the innocent civilians that will more than likely die in gas attacks or bombings. Soldiers understand the inherent risks associated with being in the military, and try as best as they can to accept those risks. Every soldier knows that they might be killed in the line of duty when they enter the military, but civilian deaths are the repercussions of war. I have made no secret of my views on the invasion of Iraq, or on the US position in the Middle East. But, now I only wish for an extremely quick end to the battle, so as to save lives on both sides???..

by pesk, mbcs, mcse, mcitp, sts

Why don't the powers that be just go to the UN and say, "YES! We know they have WMD...", UN,
"How?", Powers-That-Be, "Well, here's the receipt for the 1000 gallons of VX we sold to them in '87, here's a receipt for the plutonium, here's one for the bombs, fighters, missiles, did I mention VX and mustard gas? Oh! And here's one they didn't pay for training on how to use them..."

by dcosgrove

Apparently you only like to hear what is convienient. At one point, Iraq was an ally of the U.S. You may realise the dgree of poverty Iraq was and is in. In an effort to aid them we provided them with tiny ammounts of biological agents in the for of vaccines. At that time the entire world was attempting to erradicate small pox and various other highly controlable diseases. This argument that "the U.S. gave them these weapons" is absurd. As far as military hardware, do you know what type ofplanes they have? Mirages from France, and antique Migs from the U.S.S.R.

by road-dog

Don't forget the Osirak nuclear power plant. Only the largest of idiots would believe that it was ever envisioned as a source of electrical power. Iraq was and is one of the richest oil deposits in the world. They needed nuclear power like a guy in a life boat needs saltwater. This was nothing more than the French lining their pockets at the expense of world security.

France was stonewalling action on Iraq to hide their involvement in Saddam's WMD programs and to protect their near monopoly on oil and arms contracts.

Once this comes to light, the US should demand that France forfeit its seat on the UN Security council. If the UN fails to take this action, then the US should withdraw from the UN and use their sizable UN dues to defraythe costs of the war and reconstruction.

This is the only course of action that the UN can undertake to begin redeeming themselves.

by jardinier

This is a viewpoint shared by many Australians. It has been presented as an explanation of why our PM John Howard, while refraining from revealing the nature of his "Intelligence," has followed doggedly in the footsteps of the USA.

He KNOWS Hussein has the WOMDs because America and its allies sold them to Iraq.

by road-dog

Countries that are members of the coalition of the willing?

How about this for an explanation, the US is (gasp) intercepting intel from those selling weapons and technology. Even when it is an ally or a country with whom we wish to keep on good terms.

Don't be so quick to accuse the US of violations of this type. The US is not the only country wishing to disarm Saddam, we are just out front.

If the US (or an ally) DID send the weapons, why would we be pressing to have dozens of other countries involved in the action and take a chance on a less friendly ally finding and exploiting it? We would do better to go in alone or simply fuel-air bomb every possible location for the evidence and be done with it?

The US's actions do notindicate a cover-up of any kind. Remember that this war will have legions of press right in with the troops. These reporters heve been cleared by us. To allow such access to a media that is so critical of the President and his policies would be insane, if there were something to hide.

Clearly your assertions do not fare well under serious examination.

by qballrail

>He KNOWS Hussein has the WOMDs because America and its allies sold them to Iraq.

This isn't as deep, dark a secret as you think it is. It's common knowledge that during the Iran/Iraq war, US sold arms to BOTH countries, just like the former Soviet Union. Now, we have the dirty job of destroying the monster we've created. Don't think Iran is any better, they're just as much a threat that N. Korea is, only much quieter.

by mazmann_98

I hope we can treat our troops with the respect they deserve when they get back, whether or not we believe in the war. They are sent there to do our gov's work whether they like it or not. They are always there for us and we should be there for them.

by road-dog

If you see a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine being spat upon by some peacenik dirtbag, simply say to the military man: You protect us over there, we protect you over here". Then deliver such an ass beating upon said peacenik that they have to usetheir headband as a tourniquet and their "babykiller" sign as a splint.

Then say the the peacenik: "now THAT is what happens to dissenters in Iraq". "try to use the rights protected by our military a little more constructively in the future".

by generalist

A more peaceful yet pointed way of dealing with such would be to ask if the peacenik has gone to Iraq to protest what Saddam has done to his own people.

If the peacenik says that they haven't gone, hand them a copy of some of the pictures of the Kurdish village that got gassed not long ago and inform them that THEY are in effect supporting Saddam by not trying to get rid of him.

by jardinier

This is in response to your postings: "Jul646, your're wrong," because the maximum message level was reached on that particular thread.

I greatly appreciate your posting, as it is obviously designed to inform me rather than just criticise me.

Especially I was interested to learn about the oil reserves in Alaska and Venezeula, and the fact of the relatively large size compared to Middle East oilfields.

So thank you for the useful information, and the politeness of your postings.

by admin

Treat them with respect, dignity, and genuine thankfulness. Not only the US, but all consenting allies. One of the terrible wrongs of Vietnam was the blaming of the soldiers. This was insane, unjust, cruel and stupid. I pray sincerely that we have learned from this and will never stand by and allow it again to raise it's ugly head unchallenged.

by maxwell edison

Anyone who says, “I support the troops but not the war” is full of it. He or she may say it with good intentions, but it’s based in total ignorance. That dog just don’t hunt. In addition, I would bet a dollar to a donut thatthe person spouting such nonsense has never been a soldier. It’s not possible to give “full support” to a soldier while, at the same time, spout off in protest over what that soldier is doing – at least not from the soldier’s perspective. I know – I know from experience.

My brother came back from a year in Vietnam and the better part of another year nursing his wounds only to find a gang of protestors calling him a baby killer. He wasn’t a baby killer, he was my idle, my hero, and he was – and is – a great person. He was advised not to wear his uniform upon landing in California because of the vulgarities that may be directed towards him. The vulgarities found him anyway. The “peaceniks” were lucky he contained himself.

And I too experienced the hatred towards soldiers. I served from 1972 to 1978 and not once, not twice, but three times I was the target of hate and contempt just because I wore a uniform. I was run off the road while riding my motorcycle (in uniform) to the base; I was thrown out of a bar and grille (by angry patrons) because I was eating my dinner while in uniform; and I was threatened by a gang of thugs because I had the gall to wear my uniform at a shopping mall. And this didn't happen on foreign soil, it happened in America.

Don’t tell me you support the soldiers but not the war. If you do, you don’t know squat. It’s all a bunch of crap. And there's not a soldieralive who wants to hear it.

by admin

you believe it would be preferable to support sending soldiers into any battle no matter how unjust?

The thing about Vietnam was- it was wrong. It was screwed up. This wasn't the soldiers fault. To support an effort that is unjust is a BIG middle finger to anyone fighting it as a member in the military. To stand by and support your friends and family putting themselves in life threatening danger for a crappy reason is completely irresponsible of you. Don't give me that being in the militarycrap- a lot of people didn't want to go and THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIER SACRIFICE MEANT SO MUCH! They went into a no win hell hole while the country figured it out. Don't belittle them and say this should happen again. It's irresponsible and illogicalto patronize our soldiers this way. Most soldiers have brains and the discipline to follow orders whether or not they coincide. You can bet most of them are hoping that their loved ones at home are proud of them AND working hard to bring them home as soon as possible. It's not all Hawks and Doves like your narrow little flippant answers seem to consistantly point towards on this issue. You
belittle our military and those in it with this comment.

The protesters that belittled you and your brothers efforts are beyond low. Don't sink to their level with your endless grudge and black heart on this issue. With your logic we would see the end of Democracy and a balanced government in this country. Thank God most military people don't see itthe way you do.

by mallardtooxx

Max I give you props, that my friend is absolutely right. May saddam and hitler roast weenies in hell and our boys and girls make it home safe and sound. I think the general tennets of war have remained unchanged through out time. If anyone doubts that look at what US Grant said was his ideal:
"Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can, and strike him as hard as you can. And keep moving on!"
- Ulysses S. Grant's philosophy of war

and only one time have we turned our backs, it wasn't war that changed, it wsa people. I pray to God that people have realized just what these men and women are doing for US at their expense!
God bless them all!

-duck

by sullyman

SNIP - Anyone who says, ?I support the troops but not the war? is full of it.- SNIP

SNIP - Admin, with all due respect, you think I harbor an ?endless grudge and black heart?? Please, give me more credit than that. And don?t presume to know what?s in my heart or in my mind. It?s obvious that you have no idea. ? SNIP

You tell someone how he or she feels or that they are wrong about an issue. Then go on to tell someone that they cannot know how you feel.

Yes, someone can offer support for the troops and not the effort. Using your own logic, ?don?t presume to know what?s in my heart or in my mind. It?s obvious that you have no idea?

by maxwell edison

(And let’s leave His Eminence, the Pope, out of this. Unless, of course, you want to claim that you follow ALL of the Pope’s stated doctrines. For example, he's against abortion as well. Are you?)

Anyone certainly has the right – indeed the obligation – to make their opposing views known, especially when it comes to military action against another people or another nation. But the true and accurate reason for that opposition should be taken into consideration. In addition, the fallout from that opposition should be readily accepted – kind of like taking responsibility for your own actions. Like I said, go ahead and speak out against the war and claim it’s unjust all you want, but, in my opinion, thesoldiers are being done a disservice, and they will never consider that “supporting the troops”. And I, on the other hand, also have the right to speak out against those who speak out against something in a way that I find distasteful orinappropriate.

My bottom line assertion is this: When American troops – especially those stationed overseas – are inundated with reports and films of protestors spouting off against the very thing they are doing, it does not give themessage, “we support the troops”. To the contrary, it’s disheartening to hear, and no soldier wants to hear it. Moreover, the 30% of Americans against this effort seem to get 70% of the news coverage. In addition – and this is something the protesters conveniently fail to address – where were these folks when Bill Clinton ordered troops into Haiti or Bosnia or anywhere else he sent them? The “just cause” then was nothing compared to the “just cause” now. And where were these protestors when, in 1998, missiles were being launched by the hundreds into Iraq? This is a political protest against George W. Bush – no mo

by mazmann_98

Well I am a serving member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces and have been for the last 15 years, am just waiting to be sent to the Gulf......so when I say think of the troops i know what I am talking about...by the way I was there last time and since.....

by jardinier

Our Vietnam veterans were treated with the same public abuse as US Vietnam veterans in their country.

I feel sure that we have learned our lesson.

Tonight (Saturday, Sydney time) has witnessed an historic State Election in New South Wales. For the first time in Australian history, a State Government has been returned for a third four-year term.

Both the victor (Labor Premier Bob Carr) and the loser (Liberal leader John Brogden) commenced their respective speeches by sending their good wishes to our Australian troops in the Gulf, and wishing them a speedy and safe return.

Whilst the war is enormously unpopular with a large proportion of Australians, I am totally confident that the troops will receive a hero's welcome on theirreturn.

by mallardtooxx

Chirac and saddam being in bed. France accounts for almost 24% of iraqi oil sales. I think this is the time to take a good hard look at the idea of world government. Why is it that we must cow tow to other nations? I know that diplomacy is key, believe me I know this. But I think it is interesting that France and germany and russia are all three afraid of getting caught with their pants down. I can't wait to reread this in my grandkids history books. The french will taste an awful lot ofthe snake oil they have been peddling to the world community. I think the ends will truly justify the means.

-duck

by maxwell edison

Admin, with all due respect, you think I harbor an “endless grudge and black heart”? Please, give me more credit than that. And don’t presume to know what’s in my heart or in my mind. It’s obvious that you have no idea.In addition, don’t presume to know what (generally) goes on in the mind of a soldier – especially a soldier facing battle. You just can’t know unless you’ve been there – or at least have been intimately involved in the military culture. (Meaning more than just “knowing” a couple of soldiers.)

For someone to “support the troops” is more than just good intentions - and it’s more than just words. I’m sure you’re familiar with the saying, “Don’t just talk the talk, but walk the walk”. Or another one, “If you want to know if a person really means what he says, just watch what he does”. (Or something like that.) But for argument’s sake,lets start from the premise that someone “supports the troops”, but opposes the cause. Let’s dissect that and look at the repercussions. And by the way, I’m not taking this in the context of a general discussion, and America is not in the habit of invading other countries to dominate their citizenry, so don’t even suggest that possibility. I’m taking this in the context of the current conflict with Iraq and terrorism – no more, no less. (Yes, Iraq and terrorism have strong links.)

(continued...)

by maxwell edison

There are those who claim that this war with Iraq is “unjust”. Well, by definition, if one side is “unjust”, then the other side must have just cause on their side. The other side must be right. Therefore, anyone who claims that this war is “unjust” must be taking the side of the enemy – the “just” side in their eyes. Now we have a person saying the same thing – doing the same thing – as the enemy. The enemy loves this support. The enemy uses this support in the propaganda war. The enemy shows its citizenry the people outside that American military base protesting. The enemy uses this support to “justify” its actions. Taking the side of the enemy is no way to “support the troops”.

If the war with Iraq (or anyone else) is “unjust”, and by default the other side is “just”, then one must hope that “justice” (from which “just” is derived) prevails. One must hope that the other side wins. To hope the other side wins is to hope that the “unjust” side loses. How can one “support the troops” by hoping they lose (or thinking they should)? And don’t say that you don’t hope they lose. It’s nonsense to say that one side is “unjust” but you still hope they win anyway. It’s flawed thinking.

(continued...)

by admin

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right Max.

By your definition the Pope automatically supports Iraq and it's policies. This is hardly the case.

Your premise that:
"There are those who claim that this war with Iraq is ?unjust?. Well, by definition, if one side is ?unjust?, then the other side must have just cause on their side.

is faulty and unsupportable in the real world.

Your logic based on this premise is correct, however your premise is unsupportable.

by maxwell edison

Just cause” – the phrase is imperative in the eyes of the soldier. If Vietnam taught us anything it should have shown the importance of having “just cause” on our side. Yes, there were a lot of disgruntled citizens during Vietnam, but there were also disgruntled soldiers. (I saw them too.) They were disgruntled because “just cause” was not on their side. If a soldier feels that the public is not in support of their effort, they begin to question themselves. They begin to question their superiors. They begin to question their mission. They begin to question their fellow soldier. When they begin to question these things, soldiers begin to die in huge numbers. Giving soldiers reason to doubt their mission is no way to “support the troops”.

Now I’m not saying that it’s not the right of an American citizen to make his thoughts known in regards to taking military action against another nation. To the contrary, it’s his duty to do so. But it’s sickening to me to see the ones who vocalize their opposition to this conflict with Iraq when they chose to be silent about sending troops to Bosnia or Haiti. The people vocalizing their opposition to this war with Iraq arenot really against the war, per se, but against George W. Bush. They are in lockstep against it because they are in lockstep against him. They’re all hypocrites for not taking the same stance against Bill Clinton who sent troops all over the world in the name of “just cause”, and whose cause paled in comparison to what we face today.

Go ahead. Spout off all you want about the war being unjust. But be advised, by doing so you are not supporting the troops. To the contrary, as I said before, there’s not a soldier alive who wants to hear such nonsense.

(continued...)

by admin

I am one of those millions of Americans who are praying with our soldiers and their families for their safety and that of their loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For their sacrifice, they have my gratitude and respect and I pray that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

I was glad that Bush said: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure." Reluctance to go is admirable in a war. Once we commit though, we need to really go.

Now that the war has started, I offer that it may be wiser to refrain from this discussion and throw BOTH of our support where it belongs- with the troops and always the resolve is to discuss it beforehand, but once in, then fight to win. By further attempted exclusion of the many Americans who have opposed getting into this war too soon, or even those who outright oppose it, yet support our country, it's democratic process and it's troops, you are giving the world (yes, this board is International) the appearance that we are divided. I offer that we agree to disagree after we get our boys and girls home. Afterwards, I will be happy to pick this up again if you so desire.

by road-dog

for whatever reason, pacifism, opposition to the Republican party, or other; you would do well to consider that those folks in uniform lose friends and comrades in war. When you trivialize the war saying things like "its just for oil" or "to distract us from the state of the economy" and the like, you are trivializing their losses.

This is the equivalent of saying to our vets that their friends have suffered and died other than honorably.

Imagine if a close friend or relative died in a car accident on the way to the grocery store. A person tells you that your friend or relative died for a bag of potato chips. This is well beyond ill mannered.

The military and their mission are inexorably intertwined. You cannot support one and not the other. To attempt to do so is an abdication of your responsibility as a citizen and as a recipient of the security that they provide.

These protests and attacks on the commander in chief (although free speech)are an insult to those who wear the uniform and disrespectful of their families' hardship and loss.

by vegatecgroup

Speaking as a former combat soldier, serving with an Army tanker unit, it doesn't matter what civilians do or say at this time. If you have 48hrs to go, sit back, enjoy the ride, drink a beer, and watch. There is nothing you will be able to do if you get blasted with a nuclear, biological, chemical weapon. There is not enough duct tape and plastic sheeting to keep these agents out. Also if you did completely seal off a room, how are you going to breath when all of the air has been used in the room, keep oxygen tanks ready? Also to the people buying gas masks, most of the masks I have seen are not equipped for the agents that would hit us. The masks are either too old or the filters are not correct/too old. The people that I know that have bought them, did not even know how to seal them properly, again your dead. What about the rest of your body, buy a MOPP suit? Does anyone know what MOPP Level four means? Sit back and relax, your a goner.

by jkaras

Hey all, I appreciate all opinions posted to my thread, but my original intention was to point out what would you do in the last 48hrs. of life if you had carnal knowledge of your demise whether it be from war or even a health matter? Yes I agree I was a bit vague in my posting, but one minute I was having a great time without a care in the world and then... bam! We are at war. Life throws us all curve balls when we least expect it and the purpose of life is to make the most of that life with as little or as much time we are allotted. Either posting whether humorous, serious, political etc... will not be descriminated against. May truth and justice prevail in this conflict that the end result will bring about a new understanding as well asuniversal peace. It's obvious that all sides are demanding political unity among our nations and no citizen is going to except nothing less from our politicians. This conflict will usher in a new world for our planet or armaggedon could bring us in touch with the dinosaurs.

by road-dog

will NOT escalate to and E.L.E. (Extinction Level Event), so let's define this conjecture as purely hypothetical.

This being said, this is the list of stuff to do during the last 48 hours on earth with NO possibility of repercussions.

1) Fax apicture of my ass to every member of the my ex wife's family.

2) Do my level best to talk my neighbor into mowing her lawn in the nude this one time.

3) Take a pickaxe to the car belonging to that pinheaded teenager in my neighborhood with a $3,000 stereo system in a $50.00 car and who believes that the it is his mission in life to share rap music with the world.

4) Settle in with a pile of board games, a 55 gallon drum of ice cream, and my family.

by jkaras

Hey Road dog, being a fellow Floridian, if you can convince her give me a ring, if money needed to get her to do it I'll pledge some money!! HEEHEHE. As for me I probably make some quick phone calls to all people that matter and then high tail it tothe local boobie bar and attempt to complete that harem fantasy of mine. Harem....(Homer moan complete with drooling), call my ex-girlfriends and tell them I was faking it the whole time, and jump out of a perfectly good airplane (with a chute mind you).

by admin

Well, I would spend it with my close friends and family enjoying good food and making sure I communicated my love for them.

One of the things they often say in the military is that you need to wait until the second or third report is in. This is sage advice as to the outcome IMO. In this specific war, now that we are committed, we need to wait. I am certain that the facts will be forthcoming over time.

by mallardtooxx

I would find myself the biggest most expensive and fandangled HD PLASMA TV I could find. I would then buy it with 0% intrest and 0 payments for a year (just because I am evil that way). I would then grab my wife and kids and anyone else that wanted to come. I would plant us all in front of it and just watch TV and talk and play and do all of the things I always say we'll see to my kids. If I knew ahead of time. I cannot imagine wanting to be anywhere else nor would I want to be with anyoneelse but my family. Oh yeah and I would drink all the windex in the house and blame it on the cat!

-duck

by admin

It's pretty cool that so many IT guys seem to really genuinely love their families.

I always heard the stereotype of the inept unloved geek or the slick electronic gadget bachelor. This board has given me more perspective on this.

Thanks! :)

by generalist

If I knew the cause, I would see what I could do to avoid it...

If the cause was something unavoidable that would kill the rest of the immediate family too, I would make sure that we treated ourselves to what we like and are asleep when the end comes. I would not mention that we only had a limited time left.

If the cause was something unknown with an unknowable impact, I would keep to an almost normal schedule with extra treats added in. And I would make sure that I left a note behind explaining why I didn't tell anybody my time was limited.

by jardinier

I would look carefully back over my whole life and make a list of the people I had hurt, either intentionally or by ignorance.

Where it was possible to do so, I would contact each of these people and apologise.

I would place the remainder of the list in an envelope with a plea to anyone who found it to try and complete my mission of apology.

I would spend any remaining time praying for healing to those I had hurt, and forgivess for myself for my inept actions.

by maxwell edison

This is a political protest against George W. Bush – no more, no less. For anyone to claim otherwise is to be either disingenuous or politically ignorant.

by thechas

Not only do I oppose abortion, I am FULL pro-life!

No death penalty for ANY crime.
No euthanasia.

That is part of why I could not vote for George W.

While he is opposed to abortion, he oversaw one of the largest increases in state sanctionmurder as Governor of Texas.
His hatchet man, John Ashcroft, continually works to find ways to apply the death penalty to any case. Even if the state in question does not have the death penalty.

I know, that the average person in the US looks atthe death penalty as the ultimate crime deterrent.

What they fail to see, is the fact that most criminals do not consider the penalty for their crimes because they do not expect to be caught and tried.

Lets not forget, that it cost the taxpayers more to kill a criminal than it does to house them for life.

Further, with all the recent reversals of death penalty convictions, no one can truthfully argue that the death penalty is a just sentence.

I anxiously await the time when the US gives up it's barbaric practices of Abortion and Murder by the state.

Chas

by maxwell edison

I must say that both you and admin surprised me with the anti-abortion proclamations. Usually that end of the political spectrum is pretty much lockstep in favor of it. However, I suppose I shouldn't be that surprised since the other end of the political spectrum, the end on which I fall, is in favor of the death penalty, which I also oppose. However, I would think that your characterization of a couple of fine men is rather unfair. And even though I disagree with them on that one issue, it doesn't mean I would automatically demonize them because of it. After all, It appears to me that a HUGE majority of Americans - both left and right leaning - are in favor of state sponsored killing.

I apologize to the author of the original thread for the off-topic tangents. What would I do if I had only 48 hours to live? Give me a couple of days to think about it. I'll get back to you.

by dcosgrove

This argument has become so tedious to me. We were not wrong to enter Viet Nam, we grossly underestimated the support of China and the U.S.S.R. We faultered and tried to actually honor our promises. In so doing we took the legs from under our troops and cost lives which in the end served little or no purpose. We were defending a defensless population. They were good people and when we withdrew they were slaughtered. It wasn't because we were wrong to go there, it was because our leaders fell to pressure and politics here. In looking through my father's stuff after he died, I found a letter he had written to LBJ, explaining how he believed these people needed us and how he felt he was serving in a just cause. My father was a provostat a little fire base in Plei Ku S. Viet Nam. He had stapled a letter to it which was a response from the VP, basically an "attaboy" form letter but seemingly hand written. Several months later he was forced to call in an air attacks on his own position as the firebase was over run. He volunteered for a second tour shortly after. The only injustice in Viet Nam was leaving and not trying to win. The stain we bear as a result of that conflict is failure to win, not because we couldn't, because we wouldn't. I just heard on the news that Iraqis were buying flowers before leaving Bahgdad, asked why, a reporter was told "to give to the soldiers when they free us".

by admin

I should have qualified it and I apologize for the blanket statement. I grew up with my father who was in Military Intelligence in South East Asia. I agree that: "We were not wrong to enter Viet Nam", in fact I agree that we were right to enter thatconflict but I still stand by the fact that it was (later) wrong for the same reasons you give essentially.

"we took the legs from under our troops and cost lives which in the end served little or no purpose" -which is especially wrong to me because it's reprehensible to me that anyone suffers or loses their life this way. Especially when it can be avoided.

and:

"The only injustice in Viet Nam was leaving and not trying to win. The stain we bear as a result of that conflict is failureto win, not because we couldn't, because we wouldn't."

To me, this was wrong. We should have done what needed to be done. But if we were not going to do what needed to be done, then we needed to get out. Sh*t or get off the pot, to be blunt. Escalation didn't work historically. Brinkmanship, Information Warfare, Intelligence, Tactical Strike, Special Ops and Massive Attack do.

Luckily, I believe we have learned a lot about how to operate in these theaters since then. Since we are going towar now, I am greatly greatly appreciative that we are going in full force to win as soon as possible and get everyone home. This is a real legacy that we can be proud of- that we have learned. We were relatively new to conflict resolution and we have gotten a lot better, in civilian life, politics, and the military we are much better prepared for all of this now. I want to play basketball with all my relatives at the family barbeque this summer because I love them and desire their safety. I then extend this thought to everyone, including the Iraqi people.

(cont.)

by admin

We had the intelligence in Vietnam. We could have done it even with China and the USSR threats. This in NO WAY reflected poorly on the soldiers there. In fact, if you read my above post you see that I said quite the opposite: "THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIER SACRIFICE MEANT SO MUCH! They went into a no win hell hole while the country figured it out." This in no way reflected on our Military or Equipment. They were A double + thumbs up Great.

It reflected poorly IMO on our government. Not the Democrats or Republicans per se (Hey, Kennedy would get rightfully blamed a lot more if not martyred), Not Hawks and Doves etc. but bad political handling of the situation.

Everybody I have known talking about it in our living room(s) growing up (including my father) say EXACTLY the same thing as your father, and I take it as truth. The Vietnamese are a wonderful people and they did need our help. God Bless every one of those who did their duty in such an overwhelmingly difficult situation. They all deserve the highest reward, and as I said to Max, those who would despise, spit on and harass their protectors are the lowest of the low. period. Had I been around and old enough, given my demeanor, I would have probably gotten really p*ssed off and went to the airports to welcome soldiers home and challenge the protestors. I kind of like the occasional challenge.

I didn't come of age in the 60's. The hippies seem kinda silly to me but oh well. I'm a child of the tearing down of the BerlinWall. I have no problem with killing when necessary, I just think your father was right, we should have given them the ability to win. It must of been hell trying to fight without that.

by dcosgrove

What I'm trying to impart, and forgive me, I still get touched by my Dad's service, it eventually took his life, is that we seem not to have learned anything. We felt during VN that we could hold NV at the 17th paralell, not over throw them. We did the same in Korea. We chose in VN not to strike into the enemies territory, his bases were safe, we were essentially defense only. Sure the US survived, blackened eye and many grieving parents and spouses, but we're still here. SV is gone now. We are now invoking a different policy born of that error and the frustration it bred. We were attacked, mercilessly and with great effect. Now were taking it to the enemy, no safe haves, no plausible deniability. Iraq is involved, money, expertise, material and motivation. Few truly doubt that, it's hard to prove such things in these circumstances. So we take it to them. Why not other countries? No other country has so obstinately refused to cooperate on a diplomatic level. N Korea is putting on a show, but we can deal with them, Egypt and Syria are at least attempting to LOOK cooperative. Frankly, our past should show us that this is the right thing to do, for us, for the world and even for Iraq. Don't forget, they didn't chooseSaddam, he chose them. And when you here of Iraqi civilians dying, think of the firefighters who rushed the towers to save anybody that they could, I doubt you'll see trhe likes of that in Iraq, hell, they could have removed all non-military personel from the city in 48 hours, but they didn't. If they did they couldn't buzz CNN with the latest civilian casualty reports every 30 minutes.

by dcosgrove

I get a lot of mixed reaction in my little computer shop when people see my three kids in the back room. Probably 15% are rather disgusted at such a lack of professionalism, 80 % wish they could do the same and 5% think were some bunch of nuts who live here and try to run a buisness. In addition, i really hate gagets, never owned a palm, don't have internet service at home, have one TV, finally got my first DVD player (actually a gift for my wife). I will grant you I'm a little introverted, not quite the social animal, but I am a volunteer firefighter. And thanks for noticing by the way, I'm all about busting the stero type.

by qballrail

Those men and women will die defending our country. No matter how you look at it, Saddam is a threat to International Security, the same as Kim Jong Il is a threat. However, one concern I do have is I think Bush may have his priorities a little mixed up. While UNSCOM was in Iraq, the likelyhood of him striking anyone was slim to none. Saddam is secondary to that of Kim Jong Il, a very present danger. The last of the Stalinists, he wants no more than the world at his feet. Saddam, while UNSCOM was in his country with coalition forces (even a fraction of the number we have there now) was like a rabid pit bull on a leash.

by maxwell edison

Therefore, should President Bush have ordered an invasion of North Korea instead of Iraq? And you forget, UNSCOM was kicked out of Iraq in 1998 by Saddam - they were kicked out. In addition, by UNSCOM's own admission (and track record), they were ineffective in preventing Saddam from living up to his 1991 cease-fire agreement with the UN.

As far as the last "Stalinist", Saddam is right up there with the best of them. Joseph Stalin is (and always has been) Saddam Hussein's role model and hero. Saddam emulated Stalin's methods to achieve power and still does to retain it.

See the article, "Saddam as Stalin: The case for war"

Link:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/11/1044927592989.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/7w5y

by dcosgrove

Funny you should say that. Hussein has a personal library of books on Stalin and idolizes his deeply. He has fostered his image to reflect Stalin and even grooms himself to appear as such. I really don't see N Korea as such a threat. They have NO economy and would be dead were it not for aid from other nations and private organizations. Kim just want's his little voice heard, to seem like a bigger man than he is. Saddam has massive resources, left alone, he could be a far greater threat.How long can we embargo Iraq? How many Iraqis must die because Saddam buys weapons instead of food?

by road-dog

She and the mighty wifeasaurus are good friends. Even though she doesn't mind me parking my butt on our front porch swing on the neighbor's gardening days, I think she'd draw the line at active solicitation.

I haven't had the doodads to propose the master plan, setting up the "mower cam" on the internet and splitting the cash.....

by thechas

Yes, the US and it's allies have sold weaponry to both Iraq and Iran.
Also, to the Tali-ban.

However, the US has NOT sold Nuclear, chemical or biological agents to these rouge nations.

While we may have helped create these monsters, that is along way from providing the technology that they have developed for WMD.

I have a lot of problems with the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Over the past 100 years, that has gotten the US and several other countries into a lot of trouble.

Chas

by maxwell edison

Chas, I too have "somewhat" of a problem with that, as you articulated so well. However, being more of a realist instead of an idealist, I see the merit in such relationships, albeit only sometimes. Yes, it has gotten us in some trouble in the past,but it's also produced positive results. For example, without the "enemy" known as the USSR becoming our "friend" to face a common enemy in Hitler's Germany, the duration - and possibly the outcome - of WWII would have been dramatically affected, and the world would most likely be a different place today. (And not for the better, I might add.) So it can be advantageous at times.

I look at it this way. Every nation on earth will behave in a way that's conducive to achieving its own goals andprotecting its self interest. No two nations hardly ever have common goals, and most nations don't share a self interest. But nations do, from time to time, have common interests. When an alliance of one degree or another can serve the self-interestof both, then it can be beneficial to both.

The problem, however, especially of the last 50 years or so, is the lack of long term fallout considerations. But since the present is easier to predict than the future, it's understandable to overlookit. (Or at least hope for the best.) Hindsight is always 20-20. Foresight - that's the challenge.

by road-dog

I agre with the "enemy of my enemy.." premise as relates to shifting alliances in response to common goals and common enemies but there is a historical point I'd like to articulate.

The alliance between the "allies" and the Soviets during WWII was really brought about by Hitler. Hitler attacked Russia opening the Eastern front. This preceeded the logistical and strategic cooperation that eventually closed in on Berlin.

The Russians did indeed suffer greatly at the hands of the third reich and there was a race to Berlin between our forces and their Russian counterparts, in attampts to gain an increased role in the post war Europe and to capture advanced German technological advances.

I refer to this as Coopetition, rather than a true alliance.

Other facts of note are that Russia declared war on the empire of Japan only after the outcome of the war was obvious. They captured several strategically important islands bordering on the far east and never returned them at the cease of hostilities. The communist occupation (annexation) of east Germany and other balkan states is historical fact.

The "alliance" between the US and Russia was abything but. More realistically in is best described as Russia using the Axis as anexcuse for expansion.

by maxwell edison

Yours is such a tired old argument, and one that is constantly exaggerated, taken out of context, or otherwise misrepresented in some way.

However, if we assume your premise is correct, it just BEGS the question, therefore what? Here's how I'd answer the "therefore what" question.

If Saddam is a monster who is a threat to humanity, and he became that way because of someone else's help, then we should take him out.

If however, Saddam is a monster who is a threat to humanity, and he became that way because of America's help, then we DAMN WELL BETTER take him out.

So what's your point?

(Your point is to just be among the "blame America first" crowd, I suppose.)

by sullyman

How is the US not accepting responsibly for being one of the countries that helped to create the current dictatorship in IRAQ an old argument. There comes a time when you have to admit you made a mistake, fix the mistake (which they are doing), andthen apologize for the mistake. How can you exaggerate the fact that the US played both sides of the coin by supplying arms to iran and iraq. You sell arms, you take the money..no exaggeration there. You orchestrate Saddam?s rise to power, becauseyou want to have a monster in power in iraq, so you can use him to perform atrocities on another country that you don?t want to be involved in. The point is you cannot take out someone that you created, just because they are now a psychopath.Look at the stats on US sponsored leadership directorates:

Bin Ladden/Taliban ? Result ? War
Hussein ? Result ? War x2
Noriega ( sp ) ? Result ? Tactical Ops

That is batting a thousand over the last 20-40 years, it looks like the CIA/FBI most wanted list

by jardinier

from the USA would be a refreshing relief from the scandalous lies which George and Colin think the rest of the world is too stupid to see through.

Even Blind Freddie knows the primary reason for the war on Iraq is about oil, and yet I had to watch on TV as your President declared with a straight face: "Our purpose is to liberate the people of Iraq from their tyrannical leader."

I mean, give us a break: we are not TOTALLY STUPID !

by maxwell edison

You are obviously a member of the "Blame America First" club.

Nothing I say will change that, so I won't even try.

by generalist

You better include France and other industrialized nations in the list, at least as far as arms are concerned.

And when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, you have to look at those countries that sell the technology to make such things. One of the big problems with technology is the fact that the same technology that can be used for life saving vaccines and chemicals can also be used for biological and chemical warfare.

It makes for an interesting conflict, especially when dealing with totalitarian monsters like Saddam.

by maxwell edison

...just stupid. (Remember......keep smilin')

By the way, you too are a mamber of the "Blame America First" club.

by road-dog

and this is why:

1: If the objective were oil, as was the big accusation during gulf war I, why did we not just permanently occupy Iraq or Kuwait in 1991?

2: Why did we attempt to go through the UN before proceeding against Saddam this time?If the objective were to seize oil, then why set ourselves up to sharing the "spoils of war" with a number of other industrialized nations?

3: Instead of attacking Iraq to meet our energy needs, why didn't we simply topple the regime in Venezuela (which has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel) and set up a puppet government there? That country has been politically unstable for two years. We get more oil from Venezuela than we do the Middle East.

4: Why has the US voted repeatedly to maintain the oil for food aspects of the UN sanctions from 1991. Limiting the exports of oil from Iraq has allowed OPEC more leeway to raise prices. If we simply wanted oil, then we would have lobbied the other Security Council Members to drop sanctions. We could then purchase oil less expensively than going to war.

5: This is a big issue in the US. We have a HUGE oil reserve in Alaska that our own environmental groups are preventing us from tapping. This reserve could totally replace ALL of the oil we import from the Middle East for decades. Wouldn't tapping this reserve be easier than attacking another country?

by road-dog

What this is really about.

This is about the removal of an opressive and genocidal regime. If there is any other ulterior motive, it is to create an industrialized and prosperous democracy in the middle east. If there were an unlterior motive it would be to have the example of prosperity in the middle of the middle east create a "domino effect" of democratizing the entire muiddle east, one monarchy or theocracy at a time. This has historical precedent, as all of Europe meove from monarchies and such to democracies in about 100 years. The same is possible for the middle east.

Look at history for the last 100 years and try to find an example of a Democracy declaring war on another true Democracy. Hitler doesn't count because he had already dissolved the reichstag and assumed singular control over Germany. Saddam Hussein doesn't count either. He wasn't reelected in their last election, he was the only candidate on the ballot and their parliament is a puppet organization.

I'm a student of history, and I cannot think of a single example of agression between two true Democracies. By true democracies, I mean a multi party political system where the more extreme personalities of all parties are truly at the fringe and there must be concensus between folks of different organizations in order to justify war.

Democratization of all nations would have a stabilizing effect on the middle east and create a path to prosperity for Arabs and other semitic peoples. With prosperity, the "terrorist factory" that is the middle east would have something else to produce; and more importantly, something to live for rather than die for.

by thechas

Hi Maxwell,

I am not nearly as liberal as you may think.

When I become politically active, I supported mainly Republican candidates.

There are multitudes of Democrats that I cannot stand as compared to the few Republicans that I have issueswith.

However, I have become disillusioned with the US Republican party.
(and the Democratic party for that manner)

The damage that the Engler years brought to Michigan will be felt for years to come.

Yes, privatization 'can' reduce the cost of government services. But, if it lowers the value of those services too much, the savings is often lost to other increased costs.

I truly fear the impact on America if President Bush wins a second term.

We have the 'best' President that big oil could buy.

He did not get the Republican nomination because he was the best person for the job.
He won the nomination because he built up an over-whelming amount of campaign contributions.

We are quickly sliding down the slope towards government of, by, and for the 'special interests'

I will attempt to refrain from further voicing of political views.

I just could not ignore the opening that admin gave.

Chas

by admin

The following are the principal characteristics of nationalist thought (according to Orwell):

"OBSESSION. As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort.

INSTABILITYThe intensity with which they are held does not prevent nationalist loyalties from being transferable. (For Instance, the Boston Tea Party was an admiral protest of government whilst protesting for paying through taxes for a current government action would be wrong, now, earlier it may have been quite different supporting the British- my comment.)

INDIFFERENCE TO REALITY. All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them...

by admin

As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one's own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias. If you hate and fear Russia, if you are jealous of the wealth and power of America, if you despise Jews, if you have a sentiment of inferiority towards the British ruling class, you cannot get rid of those feelings simply by taking thought. But you can at least recognize that you have them, and prevent them from contaminating your mental processes. The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality. But this, I repeat, needs a moral effort, and contemporary English literature, so far as it is alive at all to the major issues of our time, shows how few of us are prepared to make it. "

Whether or not you care Max, I really like having you on this board. However, when you divide us all into "Peacenik" or "Nationalist" etc., lose your ability to discuss logically (something I know you do well) and write peoples opinion off entirely discounting ANY views they have because you have put them in small box such as "those blaming America", I will speak out. This pattern is destructive to democratic thought and action.

by admin

It's really odd, because in every non-war posting (and actually in some war postings :) I know you to be extremely fair and understanding, beautifully eloquent and quite wise. I applaud you on this. This is what leads me to believe it's a personal issue that I would leave alone if I did not care that the IT world may assume all Americans are this way.

by jardinier

Actually Max it had never occurred to me to hate (or blame if you prefer) America. However this does not deny me the right to be critical of particular individuals or policies.

But as you are so determined to sow this seed in my brain, who knows,in time it may germinate.

As for yourself, well it is obvious that you are carrying some great chip on your shoulder which causes you to blindly lash out at anyone whose views appear to vary in any way from your own.

I don't waste my energy bearing grudges. I just carry on with my life to the best of my abilty, quite aware of and content in the knowledge that I have faults and deficiencies, and that each day I will learn something new that will make me less ignorant.

by maxwell edison

You haven't lost that sense of humor, have you?

I detect a bit of anger in the latest posts.

And by the way, you should really give our president the benefit of the doubt. If you'd quit reading that propaganda in the Sydney Morning Herald, youmight be a little better informed as to his character and true intentions. I proved to you once before how that rag skewed and editorialized the news - especially about President Bush. Our own New York Times is equally as bad. (That "Rule the World"story, by the way, was taken from the New York Times, but that nasty and misleading headline was all SMH.)

This war isn't about oil, at least not in the sense that anyone is trying to "steal" it. If the "greedy American oil producers" (Other's characterization, not mine.) had their way, there'd be NO foreign oil at all. What a great way to increase their profits - no competition. The only way this war is about oil is in the sense of maintaining a free supply of world oil, not controlled by atyrant dictator, and using profits from that oil for the betterment of the people of Iraq, not to line the pockets of the dictators and/or to be used to fund terrorism. No one is out to "steal" Iraq's oil, and I think you know it to be true, but youcan't shed your bias against President bush to admit it.

In addition, he's genuinely concerned about the millions of Iraqis who have been killed and are impoverished by the dictator Saddam. He really does want to liberate the people of Iraq - just as they want to be liberated.

by road-dog

The oil fields mentioned are not as large as those in the Middle east, but they would easily replace any oil we import from the middle east.

Oddly enough, when oil is cheap in the middle east, our oil companies can buy it more cheaply than pumping it out of the ground here. Back in the '70s we "uncapped" many wells because middle east instability caused prices to skyrocket. Afterwards, our oil companies capped thousands of wells in Texas and Oklahoma.

This issue is many times more complex than most folks here realize. Suffice it to say, the US has lots of oil here that we do not access due to environmental impact and economic factors. There are ballot referendums periodically here in Florida, USA where the state refuses to allow offshore drilling off the Gulf coast.

The case that its all about oil really does not stand up under serious examination. Don't feel badly about the misunderstanding, just state your opinions in a forum such as this and be fair with those who disagree with you. We all will become better for it.

Americans get bashed regularly by folks all over the globe and here as well. It seems that anything we do (even if it is nothing) there are folks complaining that we're arrogant or don't care. It's notalways a chip on our shoulder, its sometimes that we're just tired of being criticised by folks for every problem in the world.

Domestic America bashing is tedious, as those in America, because "blame America first" is a real movement here. The folks who carry signs "no blood for oil" have no excuse for their ignorance. Especially when the tie up traffic with their demonstrations and waste thousands of gallons of gasoline.....

by admin

Not only by tying up traffic, but driving to events, usually in individual cars and often SUV's. Even Bicycles have tires and hubs etc. full of oil products, not to even mention shoes and almost everything else we use for transportation. Of course, oil use goes way beyond this. We really can't escape oil as an integral part of our culture unless we are either choosing to not understand it or haven't yet had the opportunity to learn of all it's daily uses. It goes WAY beyond gasoline. I would conject that if people truly cut all things that had oil products in them or products that used it in production or delivery that they would live entirely outside of anything we moderns think of as essential to a functional society.

I think you are correct that it is complex, and not about just one thing. As happens most times in a simplification, the truth gets thrown out the window.

This of course in no way stops me from pursuing alternative energy sources, even if the electric or hydrogen auto industry is for now still reliant on oil to differing degrees.

~

by mallardtooxx

Max,
This is one time I will step off and say you are not quite within scope. I understand the rush to defend our country and our friends and family, I applaud you for your swift response. But, After speaking with my daughter last night I realized something. Eventhough we are fighting this war for reasons that in our mind are justified, the world does have the right to disagree. In our brief stint as a nation we have grown in many ways; yet sometimes even I wonder.
The belief of manifest destiny has never completely left us, it is a clouding agent for us sometimes. Iraq is a thorn to our security, I do not think there is anyone here that will disagree, so is north korea. However anyone that may disagree with your view does not necessarily disagree with your cause. Jul is not really blaming you or I but our elected government. I disagree that we are in the wrong but I understand the world view. Eventhough we think of ourselves as transparent, the rest of the world does notsee us as such and think we have ulterior motives for everything we do. This war will show what we mean when we say a war on terror and the tyrants of the world. Just remember it takes time for history to unfold the entire truth, when it does the rest of the world will understand as we do now.

-duck

by jardinier

It seems that I have voluntarily taken on the role of being the primary spokesman for Australia in this debate.

I especially thank that majority of people whose postings have been fair and objective, and have added to my knowledge and understanding of how the USA sees itself in the big picture.

Thank you also to those who have vindicated my right to hold an opinion that may vary significantly from that of mainstream Americans.

And Max: don't waste your time bashing the SMH. For every link you post that supports your viewpoint, I could post several that oppose it, but I can't see the point.

by dcosgrove

Firstly I would like to thank you and your countrymen, whether you agree of not, for your support of the US. I hope you know we would do the same were the table reversed. We highly prize allies such as you and the UK. I would like to let you knowthat the vast majority of Americans will happily allow you to have your opinion and most of them will actually respect it. It's ironic, and I in no means wish to include you, that the groups of people in this country who oppose the war are the mostlikely to criticize opinions which conflict there own, and the least likely to actually discuss them. I appreciate you point of view and though I support the war, I think the US MUST do the right thing when it's over, and that will be difficult. Also realize that one of the reasons we are distrusted as of late is because of how drastically our policies have changed in the past 20 years. We are experiencing a wide rift between the two major political parties mostly in regard to the "new globalism". It has caused us some "PR" problems. Had we maintained pressure on Iraq after the gulf war, we would likely not be in this predicament. The Clinton administration had a habit of putting Saddam on the back burner and allowing him to evade the terms of the UN resolutions. If the UN is to be a viable entity, it must enforce it's decisions, as it is now, it is a joke. Iraq was schedualed to head the disarmament comitee in the near future. Also, now it is comming to light why certain countries would not back the resolution and force Iraq to comply, they were aiding him and breaking the resolutions themselves. This, in my mind, nullifies there right to have any say in this matter.

by jardinier

I have just read in the Sydney Morning Herald that the Australian military have engaged much more deeply in the Iraq war than was initially expected. But as this was published in the SMH, Maxwell will no doubt find some way of dismissing this as "Anti-American propaganda."

I live in the 3rd safest Coalition (Liberal/National Parties) seat in Australia (Bradfield) and the safest Coalition seat in New South Wales (Ku-ring-gai).

I am best known locally for articles which have been published in a local magazine (The Ku-ring-gai Observer) both about politics, and simple articles about computers for beginners.

I also have a letter published usually once a week in the bi-weekly local paper, The North Shore Times. I am invariably commended for my articles and letters, and encouraged to keep up the good work.

As my comments are mostly against the Coalition (Conservative) Federal Government, I must be doing something right to be commended by the very people who support this Government.

This discussion is closed to new replies.