Gregorius Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 Holy Smokes! I come back after a weekend and this thread is three pages WOW! First of all I would like to thank those who shared their kind thoughts and concerns for my daughter and her family. That is why this forum is so special, that people of such diverse socio-economic backgrounds can come together and be friends. As I mentioned in my lead post, I did not want to open a can of worms on this issue, just to support those who have been selected to be deployed. Males in my family have served in various branches of the military since at least the Civil War, my daughter is the first female. Call me a male chauvinist if you will,but I am not comfortable with women deployed to combat zones, I think that is a job for men. My daughter joined the reserves not for glory, or medals, but because she wants to pursue a career in law enforcement. In our area, most of the law enforcement are ex-military with a degree in criminal justice or pre-law. We have the resources to send her to Purdue Univ. our local state college, but she wanted to have the experience on her resume of military police officer. Being a veteran,when she enlisted four years ago I discussed with her the possibility of being called to active duty, and she was comfortable with that. I admit the Vietnam war was a fiasco, the military had no concrete goals or objectives. My uncle was in the 101st Airborne from 1969 to 1971, he said they would fight to secure a piece of ground, and then they would pack up and leave . Remember when Nixon said "there were no American troops in Cambodia", when my uncle heard the news, he was in Cambodia. The right we have to sit here and discuss what we like and don't like about this country exists because others have fought to preserve that freedom, do you think the Iraqui people have that right? Just remember that freedom is never free, somebody else paid the bill, some with their lives. Regards, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I think the argument from the other side is simply that he is a dangerous, unstable, unpredictable orge -- and must be dealt with. "Liberating" the Iraqi people will just be by-product of the action. I'm sure the Iraqi people will appreciate their "liberation" as they are digging themselves out of the rubble and burying their loved ones. "Gotta love those Americans for giving us a helping hand." North Korea is just as big a problem, but they have long range ballistic missile capability. Hmmm. Guess we don't want to mess with them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 ---------------- On 2/17/2003 10:21:55 AM deang wrote: North Korea is just as big a problem, but they have long range ballistic missile capability. Hmmm. Guess we don't want to mess with them. ---------------- Apparently, they can only reach the west coast, a place most pro-war folks could do without, anyway. fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssh Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Greg, She & thousands of family members are on our minds.This brings on heartfelt hopes & memories for many of us who probably won't have to sit on a duffel bag again. 2LT,USAR,69-75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whell Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Economic Impact of World Trade Center attack "The three questions are: where do we get the authority, and where does it end? Exactly which countries should be "liberated" and which will be left to their own unrosey existence? How much will all this cost from our public treasury? An estimate will be helpful. Mine is $1 Trillion over 10 years JUST for Iraq - not counting the other 65 countries due for liberation." To answer the question about "authority" you must return to the President's statement of policy following the WTC attack. Remember, this mess we find ourselves in now is because we were ATTACKED, and any evaluation of our policy must be viewed in light of that attack, and our response to it. In essence, what might be referred to in the future as the "Bush Doctrine" is: we will attack terrorist and destroy their capabilities and their organizations, and also regard as enemies those countries that harbor or enable terrorists to threaten the U.S. This "doctrine" was the enabling policy behind our attack on the Taliban in Afganistan and the terrorists that enabled that regime to exist: Al Quaida. It should also be noted that a similar policy governed the use of force in the former Yugoslavia, and brought about regime change and the end of hostilities. The "liberation" of a country's citizens is not a stated military or political objective, but a potential political benefit. Thus, not a jutification for a use of force. A better question is what the impact on the US Treasury, not to mention the health of the US economy, would be for another terrorist attack. We already know what the impact is for the WTC attach (see attachment). One can argue that the economy, and the treasury, have yet to recover from 9/11. sep28WTCreport.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 It is good that Greg shared with us the issues of a family sending a soldier off to war. It is a tribute to the uses to which the forum can be put. I do, though, object people highjacking the topic to vent on the merits of the war, the politics, past history, etc. The "Music to Bomb . . . " area has been collecting such comments. I don't read them, but I'm glad they're localized there so that they don't interfere with other topics. To some extent, this IS like the Viet Nam issue. The soldiers served our country, in almost all cases very, very well, in horrible conditions. Then some members of the public quite unjustly attributed the horrors of war, and misdirected politics, to the soldiers who suffered them. It is unfair to Greg, his daughter, and any member of the armed forces to fail, intellectually, to distinguish between the armed forces, and the politicians and politics which put them in harm's way. Having made such an intellectual distinction, political comments, or even sterling moral comments, should be made elsewhere. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Robinson Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Gil, thanks for that ... I was starting to doubt my own resolve. Mark and Dean, I wasn't offended ... I just thought this whole discussion in this particular thread was misplaced. Maybe Gil sees it that way as well. Then again, perhaps I am oversensitive on this issue. More likely, I think my desire for protocol is far outgunned by the fervent desire for you folks to have for the final say. While I admire your passion, let's acknowledge the forum. I apologize in advance for my redundancy; I just think I'm right in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Agreed. I've said this before, but since I love repeating myself: I think the reason most Americans have become ignorant in the areas of politics and religion is because they never talk about politics and religion. As far as the religious right goes -- what a shame. Somehow, we (religious right) were duped by the Republicans into thinking they were actually going to champion our cause (abortion issue). Most Christians have made the mistake of becoming one issue voters. As for me, I've decided more can be done through education and changing hearts -- then by building rule-sets that people will rebel against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 The N.Korea yak is gettin old,If Bush said we are going in to get Kim,the lib's would freak as usuall.They never seen a dictator they could'nt live with.When in history did the liberal element support military action?I understand the dove thing but somebody has to save the world every 50 yrs or so.I do want to state,I'm independent politically,not too crazy about extremist left or right.So I'm back to the, I support our troops and family's,past and present,they and their family's have given us the right to disagree,without our tounges/fingers being cut off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Okay I've been silent all I can on this. I have one serious problem with the protestors and anti war advocates I have a son in the military and the last thing I want to see is him off to war. If millions are going to come out and protest the possible war all they have done is given Saddam more room to wiggle his way and manipulate the situation. If these same million people would of took a stance and protested Saddam maybe he would see the light and truly disarm and maybe even step down although I dought that ! Everyone is so quick to jump on the Anti war band wagon but why no protest against Saddam ?? This is so hypocritical its not funny !! The military pressure the Bush administration has placed on Saddam is what allowed the inspectors back in ! The inspections are NOT working if there were they would surely have found something by now. This is just another smoke and mirrors game of Saddom Insane !! Besides the UN resolution was pretty darn clear Iraq was to fess up and disarm itself and work hand and hand with the inspectors. If anyone truly believes Saddam destroyed the weapons we all know he has admitted to having in the recent past then you are fools ! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Well, it certainly starting to look like Saddam's got a secret stash, that is -- if we can believe the blathering on the old T.V. set. Just think of us anti-war folks as "anti-mass death" folks. Before people start sacrificing their lives -- I think we really need some evidence that Hussein is planning to turn the world upside down. If it starts, you won't hear any "protesting" from me. The time for that is now. After -- we all need to get on board. It does bug me that the bastard is so bent on hiding the stuff. New Moon started on the 16th, so -- if nothing this week, look for all hell to break loose on March 18th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whell Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Craig: I paid scant attention to the protests, though the media relished in the opportunity to cover them. There we also several more well behaved demonstrations this weekend in support of the president and his policies, but these were given scant attention by the press. Nevertheless, many of the comments here, and repeated in the weekend demonstrations, are designed to portray the US and its policies as unilateral, world police, king-makers, war-mongers, etc. I, for the life of me, can't understand how these folks can live with themselves, knowing that possibly the families of the victims of the World Trade Center ATTACK might be watching their protests. We are on the course we are currently on because our country was ATTACKED. We are defending ourselves against the PROBABILITY, not possibility, of another ATTACK. Negotiating with the likes of Saddam Hussein has been demonstrated over time not to be the answer. The so-called inspections have been an absolute farce. Of course Iraq does not have the ability to field an invasion force with conventional weapons and attack the US, much less defend himself from a conventional weapons attack by the US and its allies. But he certainly does have the capability to mass produce and deploy chemical and biological weapons (Hans Blix not withstanding). Hussein himself has intimated that if he is attacked he would use non-conventional weapons to defend himself. For those opposed to regime change in Iraq, I think there is a misunderstanding of why we are doing what we are doing. We are protecting our interests by removing an individual who has been openly hostile to the US and its interests, who has a stated objective of domination of the middle east (and thus gain control of a vast percentage of the world's oil supply), and who we believe to be engaged in the funding and planning of attacks of the US and its interests. Do those protesting this weekend really beleive that we do not have an obligation to protect ourselves and our interests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Wasn't the WTC and Pentagon attacks unilateral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhawk92 Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Greg- Best wishes to your daughter and my hopes and prayers are that she comes home safe. I was in college AFROTC when the "first" Gulf War broke out, and separated after 8 years back in 2000. I had friends who were in Iraq the first time and have friends who are there now. They all deserve our respect, admiration, support, and prayers. I won't get into the politics here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregorius Posted February 20, 2003 Author Share Posted February 20, 2003 Thanks Gentlemen, I would give anything so that my daughter could stay home and not go to the middle east, I would even go in her place. Thanks to all for your kind thoughts, wishes, and prayers. God Bless, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Interesting article in the Washington Post online today. Emboldened by the anti-war protests around the world, Iraq is not cooperating further with the UN inspectors. As the Bush administration has said, the protests are actually making war more likely, because Iraq doesn't think the world has the guts to disarm them. Oh well, at least some Bush-haters got to have a little bit of fun for a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Thanks for letting me know what everyone in the world thinks, mdeneen. Unfortunately, some things are more important than to be subject to simple cost-benefit analysis. That is the French way, not wanting to jeopardize $50 billion in pending oil contracts. Hmmm, if Bin Laden is prancing about the world without a care, just waiting to be collared, I wonder why you haven't nabbed him yourself. I wonder why no Democrats have come up with a plan to capture him, beyond criticizing everything the President does. I guarantee you that any Democrat who caught Bin Laden would get elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edster00 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Dont you just love all these folks who want to put off dealing with Saddam (like the last president did) who are griping about George Bush and his "rush to war" in Iraq. James Taranto had some interesting headlines in his "Best of the Web" Wall Street Journal Online column yesterday, y'all might want to check it out... Here are some headlines about Saddams "last chance." Look at the dates. "Hussein will be given 'a last chance to comply before he gets clobbered', The New York Times on Monday quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying."--CNN.com, Jan. 27, 1998 "Annan Admits Iraq Trip Could Be Last Chance for Peace"--CNN.com, Feb. 18, 1998 "Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Last Chance"--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998 "The White House suggested Wednesday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has missed his 'last chance' to disarm."--CNN.com, Dec. 18, 2002 "Future European Union members endorsed a joint declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm."--Associated Press, Feb. 18, 2003 Now, how many more "last chances" should he be given? What is all this "rush to war" nonsense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEC14576 Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Great comments Mdeneen! There are truly alot of people blinded by what is going on with all of this. It's funny, if we wanted peace we would have peace but you can't make any money from peace. That's the republican way! This whole thing is about oil and the control of it.....nothing more! The present administration running this country now are all old oil type people. Our activities in this region are totally against our constitution. If we wanted to catch Osama we would but he has to be kept alive so that all of our activities seem legit. It keeps fear alive in some American people. (don't think that the CIA or Mosaud know exactly where he is) We are in an unfortunate state of affairs and there is nothing we can do about it except exercise our right to vote and get this fool out of office. He has got to go! My prayers go out to all of the young people in the service who have to be involved with this nonsense. I pray that they all will come home soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Enjoyed your post, TEC. Please keep the conspiracy theories a-comin'. Say, how many people in the Bush administration and intelligence agencies know where Osama is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.