So sad....

[billvon 2,442]

>We are the police..

Only in our minds. There's a whole 'nother world out there, and if we continue to ignore it, it's going to bite us in the ass - again. It already did once. What will you tell the victims of the next 9/11 when our invasions inspire legions of suicide bombers to revenge the deaths of their families? "Hey, we'll just invade some more countries" ?

People who think they're invincible nearly always learn they're not the hard way. We're not invincible. 9/11 is nothing compared to what terrorists with nuclear weapons can do, and (hint hint) Saddam isn't the one who's going to arm them.

[ramon 0]

because Iraq threatens the world with horrible weapons of masturbation..I mean mass destruction.

Saddam is an asshole but please..I guess this is what the presidents speech writers think of the majority of voters...baaahhh..bleat bleat


Always remember the US Vetoes resolutions every year by the UN that Israel is a terrorist state.

"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.

[christopherm 0]

Are you even really paying attention to what's happening. We liberated Kuwait last time we were there. Completely different story this time round. We are going to have a presence and bring down the dangerous regime and replace it with one supporting the people. We won't leave till that's accomplished.

Quote

Get agreement on a deadline from the UN. Enforce it. If he disarms, great. He probably won't. If that's the case, then use force to disarm him.

Countries like France have made it impossible for that kind of solution. I said one that hasn't already been tried.

-So, how hard is the ground?!

[Genie 0]

Quote

Quote

Not only will there probably be Sadaams own cells, but it could also be seen as a great opportunity for all the other groups who have issues with the States to go in and stir up sh1t.

Quote

This reminds me of our SORRY ASS EXCUSE for news agencies..

ok - i dont know what that is so i cant really comment - care to enlighten me ?
Genie

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Agreed, but it might be tough explaining that to a man whose lost his entire family to an 'accidental' bombing of a refugee center. It might be very tough indeed to convince him that the US is not the enemy, and that he shouldn't seek revenge against us, because we decided that his family was an acceptable loss. And when we can't convince him of that, we will help create the next generation of Al Quaeda. Maybe that's neccessary, but we should accept the risk of another 9/11 now, and tell ourselves that toppling Saddam is worth living with terror for a long time.

Correct, but better alternatives don't seem to exist. We can fight against our enemies and survive, or succomb to them and give up our way of life. The evil we face doesn't negotiate, comprimise, or fight fair.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 2,442]

>Countries like France have made it impossible for that kind of solution.

Hours before the Sunday speech Chirac said he'd agree to a 30 day deadline. It was not impossible, just difficult. If you would rather see thousands of Iraqis die, and hundreds of US troops die, than have to put up with a bunch of annoying diplomacy, then your priorities are somewhat questionable.

>I said one that hasn't already been tried.

We've been doing diplomacy for, oh, around 200 years now. You gonna abandon it all because we wanted 10 days and could only get 30? Do Bush's skills at diplomacy suck so badly that he couldn't find a middle ground between 10 and 30 days?

[billvon 2,442]

>We can fight against our enemies and survive, or succomb to them
>and give up our way of life.

I agree, but I disagree that unilateral invasion in 48 hours is the best way to do that. We're probably not going to nuke Iraq, even though it would be faster and require less risk of US forces. Why not? Because we think it's the wrong thing to do; clearly there are more issues than just defeating our enemies at all costs.

If we go in alone we will win. If we go in with the UN we will win. If we go in tomorrow, or in 48 hours, or in 10 days, or in 30 days, we will win. So why not pick the option that also gives us the best outcome in the long run? Why not look at our long-term future, not just the next few years?

[kallend 1,653]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I also think this will lead to a much more restricted and paranoid way of life in the "land of the free".

Why?

Well apparently Sadaam said in response to the ultimatum that when you start the war be aware that it will be fought everywhere - paraphrasing there but what he said certainly gave me the impression that he would have no problem retaliating on american soil. And no doubt he has the capabilities...maybe not war but terrorism... and you know, that really will curtail the freedom...

Genie

Saddam never had any problems with attacks on American soil. In fact, he pays money to the families of terrorists. So, now that he has admitted direct links to terrorists...
I have no doubt that there are sleeper cells in the US, but if you are going to worry about being a victim of them, your fear is curtailing your own freedom and he wins without lifting a finger.

My prayers go out to the troops and their familes.

Mine too - but let's not forget that many of the people of Boston and Chicago and San Francisco paid money to support terrorists. What goes around comes around.

In most wars the innocent suffer as much or more than the guilty.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[christopherm 0]

Quote

Hours before the Sunday speech Chirac said he'd agree to a 30 day deadline.

A 30 day deadline with no deffinate action at the end. That's like waving your finger and saying "you better disarm in 30 days, or we'll be forced to make another resolution!"

Stop twisting the story to make it only look nice for the liberals "Why does big bad Bush have to have 10 days instead of 30, he likes death!", that's bullshit. What makes you think that Sadam will disarm in 30 days when he hasn't already done it in 4 months, or better yet, 12 years? Sadam could deffinately use the extra month to better prepare himself for war.

-So, how hard is the ground?!

[Nevets 0]

Quote

I'm all for peace......Hey, give me a "peace" of that action!

They just said on CNN that Iraqis are 60% Shiite. I think they better get the "Shiite" outta there..........

Did ya'll see the DOW rock today!!!!!!! Woohoo......

I watched the DOW rock today! Unfortunately I was trapped on the wrong side.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

------------------
Since the alert status is now downgraded to yellow:

Masking tape: the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

The alert level has been elevated back to duct tape.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Genie 0]

My prayers go out to the troops and their familes.

[billvon 2,442]

>A 30 day deadline with no deffinate action at the end. That's like
>waving your finger and saying "you better disarm in 30 days, or
>we'll be forced to make another resolution!"

No. 30 days with a definite conclusion. No "serious consequences." No "other resolution." A description of how his WMD's will be removed by force if he doesn't disarm.

>Stop twisting the story to make it only look nice for the liberals "Why
> does big bad Bush have to have 10 days instead of 30, he likes death!",
> that's bullshit.

I agree; your statement above is bullshit. It's not mine.

>What makes you think that Sadam will disarm in 30 days when he
>hasn't already done it in 4 months, or better yet, 12 years?

I doubt he will. He does everything at the last possible moment; giving him a definite last possible moment may prod him to disarm. But it probably won't, in which case, disarmament by force automatically occurs - with the backing of the UN, and every large country on the planet.

>Sadam could deffinately use the extra month to better prepare himself
>for war.

Using your logic, what will he do in 30 days that he hasn't done in 12 years with the threat of war hanging over his head? After all, he lives there and we don't; if anything, we could use the extra time (for example, to talk Turkey into using their airbases, which sounds like it may happen now with the extra time we've given for UN discussions)

[Jib 0]

Quote

However what I can't understand is the gung-ho joy that some people seem to be taking at the impending death and destruction about to occur in Iraq. I think this kind of attitude is perverse and sick and is a sad reflection on our society.

Sicker than what happens to dissent in Iraq? North Korea?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I agree, but I disagree that unilateral invasion in 48 hours is the best way to do that.

It isn't going to be a unilateral invasion!!

Quote

We're probably not going to nuke Iraq, even though it would be faster and require less risk of US forces. Why not? Because we think it's the wrong thing to do; clearly there are more issues than just defeating our enemies at all costs.

I agree. But our moral standards aren't matched by our enemies. They would nuke us without hesitation given the tools and an ability to do it anonymously. All "they" need is more time for development, which is why taking action now is better than waiting until later.

Quote

. . .why not pick the option that also gives us the best outcome in the long run? Why not look at our long-term future, not just the next few years?

I think we are doing that now, but I know you disagree. Time will reveal which actions were most prudent.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Jib 0]

Quote

>what do you propose we do.

Get agreement on a deadline from the UN. Enforce it. If he disarms, great. He probably won't. If that's the case, then use force to disarm him.

Once summer hits Iraq, our hands are tied by the weather. So, how long would you give him?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[rocketfeuille 0]

So what's all this whining going to solve, huh? Let's get on our knees and pray for our boys if we're so concerned! Jeez! Let's face it, war is happening; your complaints in a skydiving forum are sure as hell not gonna change a thing. Okay, so you don't support the war... at least support the guys who have the guts and the courage to serve their country no matter what that means! Whether you like it or not, they're serving for you! They might not be over here, protecting our soil from invading forces, but they're over there so you don't have to be! And so that we rest assured that they won't get called into action protecting you from an invading force in the future.

[billvon 2,442]

>Once summer hits Iraq, our hands are tied by the weather. So, how
> long would you give him?

Whatever works. I would guess 30 days or less, exact number to be arrived at via negotiation. We used to be really good at that before preemptive invasion replaced diplomacy as our foreign policy.

[lowpullin1 0]

ok this is not to piss anyone off.But I really don't give a damn about the war it is hard for me to say what is right and what is wrong.BUT I Really think that we should stand behide the troops that were SENT over there.They did not just wake up and say hey lets leave our families and go play GI JOE.I support THEM 100%.My husband is one of them and we are going to have our first child in about a week and I think he is a wonderful brave MAN for going over there doing what he is doing.Even if you don't agree with the gov.at least respect the men and women who are possibly giving up EVERYTHING to go over there and do what they think is the right .I know that my husband is not a hateful person who would just kill someone . Look at the fact that Saddam is killing his own people for NO reason other than the fact he is an evil evil man.And if we don't do something we might be next.How do u think they feel to know that their own country is against them.If I pissed anyone off I am TRUELY SORRY BUT THATS JUST THE WAY I FEEL.And anything that I have to say while using my husband name on this form should not be held against him when he returns.SORRY

[Michele 1]

Heya, Mrs. lowpullin

Your husband is in my prayers, and tell him thanks on my behalf for what he's doing. Most folks support the troops, irrespective of their position on the war. And it's people like you who are making the harder sacrifice. And so I say "thanks" to you, as well, for supporting him and the others so that I may remain free...

Should you need anything, please pm me and I'll find a way to get it to you. And please let me/us know when your baby arrives - and know that you are in my prayers, as well...

hugs to you,

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[b1jercat 0]

Guess what ? S.H. is toast. blue skies

[Genie 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree, but I disagree that unilateral invasion in 48 hours is the best way to do that.

It isn't going to be a unilateral invasion!!***
are you sure about that? the Uk Prime minister is in favour of this war, thats true = but he doesnt have the fnal say and they havent voted on this yet. Other than the 200 men from Poland who have been commited, it may very well be a unilateral invasion.



I agree. But our moral standards aren't matched by our enemies. They would nuke us without hesitation given the tools and an ability to do it anonymously. All "they" need is more time for development, which is why taking action now is better than waiting until later.

Quote

. . .why not pick the option that also gives us the best outcome in the long run? Why not look at our long-term future, not just the next few years?

I think we are doing that now, but I know you disagree. Time will reveal which actions were most prudent.

I do think that cuttng the legs off the UN wasnt the best way to go for anyone.. Yes France vetoed it - but america has been vetoing resolutions for years, and no one walked out of the UN as a result.. - speaking specifically about israel here - who btw have been in breach of UN resolutions for about 30 years now..

Genie

[mountainman 0]

Seems that I always hear liberals wanting more and more. And, if they get what they want, they want even more. Saddam has had about 12 years to get his act together and he still hasn't done so. It's time to take him out of there and put in someone who knows what the word "humane" is.

If we gave Saddam as much time as the French or liberals wanted and he destroyed one or two bombs in that time, they would just claim that they are disarming and that we should give them even more time.

Not going to happen. I am so happy to hear that Bush is making this happen. It will be nice to get this done quickly so these boards will go back to normal stuff instead of being clogged with thread after thread of this.

Ahh.

http://www.brandonandlaura.com

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

> long would you give him?

Whatever works. I would guess 30 days or less . . .

30 days? No way! Hint: Don't blink, or you'll miss it.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

> It isn't going to be a unilateral invasion!

are you sure about that?

We have the support of numerous countries around the world.

Quote

I do think that cuttng the legs off the UN wasnt the best way to go for anyone . . .

The US has abandoned the UN because it is no longer allowing us to achieve our goal. US goal: To make our country and the world a safer place to live.

France is abusing it's veto power to achieve it's goal. France's goal: To not lose a ton of money and futures they've got invested in Iraq.

The UN became terminally useless when France eliminated the concept of compromise by stating that they would veto any resolution leading to the use of force against Iraq. I'll bet France's last minute turn-about yesterday generated a huge collective "sure pal, whatever you say" from the White House.

. . =(_8^(1)