Daughter Was Deployed Today

[Strabo]

I try not to comment on threads like this because it is one of those touchy subjects that everyone is passionate about in a different way and in a different view but....

My thoughts and support go out to the brave people that will be put in harms way, and thier families. My cousin was diployed earlier this week also.

As for the thread crappers, how hypocritical. It is ok for you to invade a thread and shout down people that are trying to show confidence in there fellow contrymen and family members that have been called off to duty. I suggest you go make your own thread about what you would do if you were king. This thread is not about that, it's about supporting our loved one's that may be going away for the last time.

[leok]

Mark,

The points that you make are exactly why I see the position that members of the armed services are in as difficult. They are not machines, they are thinking people who face very real balances of opinion, chaos, and order. I think as members of this society, we are all responsible for what our military does, whether or not we agree with how our leaders use the military. Military people are also members of the society and share in that responsibility.

Leo

[NOSValves]

Just wrote 5 paragraphs and then said to myself why bother !!

[Deang]

I can hardly wait for the fun to begin.

Anyone figure out yet how Saddam is directly threatening our national security? Must be those long range ballistic missles hiding under his bed. I'm sure he's just itching to use VX gas, Anthrax, and plutonium on his neighbors -- knowing full well that we would turn Iraq into a sea of glass.

If he does have any of this nifty stuff, what incentive does he have not to use it, since Bush has come right out and said we are coming for him directly. So, if he has the nifty stuff, he'll definitely be using it -- why not? And of course, if he doesn't use it -- it certainly begs the question doesn't it?

Don't waste your time reading the papers and watching the news, which amounts to nothing more than government propaganda. Information coming off the front steps of the White House is NOT freaking news.

This is the Military Industrial Complex at work, that's all it is. It's about big money, oil, and distracting Americans from the domestic problems that are sucking us down into the pit.

I've been a Republican since High School. I believe in a limited federal government, the right of states to operate as they please, and everything else the party of Lincoln gave us. However, it has now become fascist in nature, and I'm done with it. I'm tired of the hypocrisy, manipulating, and lieing.

If we go into Iraq -- I will support the war effort for the sake of the individuals putting their lives on the line -- but I will never vote for another Republican again as long as I live.

For God's sake people -- wake up.

[Fish]

NEWSFLASH,Saddam is one EVIL sob,he is killing/expelling his own people as I type.More children/poor will die as result of SADDAM'S wasting his peoples money on WMD,PALACES etc than in any war we will have getting Saddam. "You can't get something for nothing,you can't have freedom for free.You won't get wise with the sleep still in your eye's,no matter what your dreams may be.RUSH". Wake Up indeed! I once again want to express my total,unwavering support for all our troops and family's.

[jnorv]

I firmly believe in shooting rabid dogs.

Jim N

[whell]

***sigh***

For those opposed to the effort underway to achive regime change in Iraq (that IS the stated goal of the Bush administration...not to go to war for to decimate Iraq, Saddam, Islam, etc.), let me pose this query, and see if the anti-war, peace at all costs philosophy still holds up:

We knew before the US joined the Atlantic theater in WW II that Germany was building a war machine capable of conquering Europe. We knew he was building concentration camps and exterminating Jews. Yet, Roosevelt faced the same challenge the Bush is now facing from the European community, and from the "peace crowd" here at home: avoid war at all costs. The problem is that the terms of engagement are set by the agressor: in WW II is was Hitler's Germany, and today it is Hussein's Iraq, NOT the USA. Therefore, Iraq looks at our reticence as a weakness to be exploited, not an olive branch to be accepted in good faith. He is therefore using and capitalizing on the anti war posture of our European friends as a way to continue his efforts to hide his weapons programs and stall reime change. This is much similar to how Hitler used Neville Chaimberlain.

So, the query: using the philosophy of the peace first crowd, should we not then have continued to negotiate with Hitler after he invaded Poland and France in WW II? If that is true, then was it England's "selective indignation" at his conquest of France that brought about the short sighted decision to declare war on Germany?

Therefore, who do we have to wait for Saddam to attack before we become selectively indignant?

[Chris Robinson]

This thread is turning into the messy "Music to Bomb Baghdad By" over in the General Questions cesspool. I haven't checked lately, but a few weeks ago it was on the NY Times Bestseller List, popularity wise. I found the discussion to be WAY over the top on both sides of the fence.

Look, let's remember that Greg started this thread and it was his about shipping his daughter off to war. As I stated at the top, I wish her and Greg and his family all the best as we enter this critical phase of international events.

As usually happens, history will write the final chapter of this debate ... As my mother so often said (usually while lecturing me after doing something severely stupid), "The truth will out!"

I believe there is a lot we don't know yet that is being played closely within diplomatic circles; I think we need to let our elected leaders make the best choices possible given all the information that they have. That is, afterall, what the country elected them to do on our behalf.

When the epilogue is written, I think we'll all have plenty of time to second guess the choices made given the facts available.

[Deang]

Please don't attempt to draw comparisons between Hitler and Hussein. We completely decimated Iraq's war machine 10 years ago, unless of course he has some nasty stuff stashed away -- in which case he'll be sure to spread the joy as soon as we send in the troops. At any rate, I can't believe anyone here actually believes that idiot has his sights set on world domination.

As far as the situation with the Iraqi people goes -- the sanctions over the last decade have done immeasurably more damage than anything that kook has done.

Is the solution really that we incinerate any country run by an unstable dictator possessing anything bigger than a grenade? Man, we is going to be busy.

[Chris Robinson]

< ... deleted ...>

[fini]

Dean,

It's obvious to me you've been listening to Oops! Wrong Planet! again. Keep it up!

fini

[whell]

The comparisons are not between Hitler and Hussein, but the way the failures in foreign policy have created and empowered leaders who build lawless regimes. The Versi treaty created the circumstances for Hitler to rise to power, just as certainly as the U.S. and European foreign policy created Hussein. We did support him indirectly during the Iran/Iraq war, and some might construe this as our own meddling in Middle Eastern affairs that resulted in Husseins rise and staying power.

However, the question is whether or not he represents a significant threat to U.S. or world interests, and whether or not we should stand by and let it happen, then deal with it later (much the same paradigm as WW II, and the world's treatment of the Nazi regime). The world chose in the 1930's to placate the Nazi regime, and hope it would be satisified with minimal, token capitulations. Ludicrous, given when we knew then of Hitler's ambitions.

We know today what Hussein's ambitions are. Will history judge our lack of response as just as ludicrous?

[NOSValves]

I did it again wrote a few paragraphs proof read and deleted !! This thread belongs in waste land this forum isn't the place for politics.

Craig

[Chris Robinson]

Amen, Craig!

C'mon guys, let's give Greg a little respect, huh? He just shipped his daughter off to an imminent war! This debate under his thread is in the worst possible taste.

If you want to have the political bar room brawl, please take it outside or over to General Questions.

THANK YOU !!!

xoxo

[Deang]

I'm sure Greg is a mature adult, who places his faith in the Everlasting God. There is nothing in this thread that Greg hasn't already contemplated and prayed about.

We all know each other pretty well over here, I don't expect this to denegrate into name calling and mud slinging. If we can't debate and discuss the issue in a mature manner, then what does THAT say about us?

This forum is as much about the virtual relationships we maintain as the information we gleen regarding audio. We've gained respect for each, and this is simply just another issue that we can use to help each other grow and maintain some balance. There have been threads like this in the past, and because of them -- ended up reversing my position on some things (the concealed carry and pledge of allegience threads).

We ALL have posted topics dealing with personal issues. These topics always end up taking twists and turns. I simply cannot understand why anyone would get stressed about it.

I would rather have a discussion like this over here than almost anywhere else. I respect everyone over here, and I always learn a thing or two. I can't do this in General Forum -- I get chest pains.

[AndyKubicki]

Let me just offer some praise to our forum members here. Whether you agree or disagree with the decisions to fight this war, I am very happy to see that EVERYONE supports our troops. We did learn this lesson in the Viet Nam war. Just a few more lessons to go from other wars!

The general tone has been respectful from both sides.

I have no problem with this forum drifting into this realm, even though it is not intended for this type of important discussion as long as it remains in one or two threads and does not overdominate bandwidth.

Peace all! (that could ultimately mean through strength)

[whell]

Can Iraq "threaten" the U.S. directly? Yes. The face of war is quite differnt now, as 9/11 should have shown us. We are not dealing with Iraq's army. We are dealing with Hussein's ability to fund terrorism, and provide terrorists with a permissive atmosphere to live, and train, and carry out their objectives. The United States, and its allies, are in the crosshairs of Al Quaida and organizations like it. And Iraq, otehr countries, will continue to position themselves as enemies of the U.S.

Can Iraq threaten the U.S. indirectly with its military? Yes. Destablizing the middle east by targetting Israel with its conventional and non-conventional weapons would be the first order of business in such an effort.

The U.S. a "*****" for the dictators of the world? Pretty dramatic, and not terribly useful language. The correct frame of reference is how the U.S. chooses to protect its interests via foreign policy and military initiatives. This is not whoring. It is using the world-wide reach of the military to protect our allies, and protect our interests. France and Germany would do well to remember why they have not not had to maintain and fund a large military for the last 1/2 century.

[Parrot]

Good points, whell. Unfortunately, a lot of people are of the mindset that unless enemy ships or planes approach our shores, we have nothing to worry about. But it's not that easy now.

Appeasement can never work. Yet you will find growing numbers of people urging the US to offer up Israel, all in the hopes of appeasing those who will always hate us, regardless.

Hitler laid out his philosophy for everyone to read. And Bin Laden too has made his ideas public. Bin Laden felt he could act with impunity because he believed, based on Somalia, that the US was cowardly and could not stand a single soldier's death. He also has made it clear that people respect strength, they "bet on the strong horse." Remember, when we liberated Afghanistan, that Bin Laden called on all Muslims everywhere to rise up and kill Americans. Didn't happen, did it? There's not going to be an uprising this time either, because Iraqis will taste freedom for the first time in their lives.

Saddam's people are already bragging that they have defeated the US once again because of the anti-war marches. I say "once again" because Saddam has always insisted he won the Gulf War. (By the way, did anyone catch a single Iraqi protesting Saddam? No. That's because any Iraqi knows he'd be killed for doing so, as would his family.)

[Deang]

If Hussein had wanted to ice Israel, he would have done it long ago. During the Gulf war, when he certainly had the nasty stuff -- he resorted to lobbing pathetic scuds.

The only thing that even remotely freaks me out is the idea that if he has the material, he could supply it to terrorists, who could in turn bring it into the country.

If it could be demonstrated to me that:

1) He actually possesses these materials, AND

2) there is money or paper trail leading from Iraq to Al Quada -

- then I could support the position. However, so far it has been nothing but postering by the Bush Administration.

But I'm telling you -- the money trail leads to Saudi Arabia.

[Parrot]

Dean,

Iraq *admitted* that it had hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons in the 1990s. This stuff is potent enough that you need just a speck to kill a man, and they admitted to tons of it. What they want us to believe is that they destroyed it all, but kept no records or documentation of the fact. Now, is that believable? Remember, they were doing all sorts of prohibited stuff in the 90s, including attempts at nuclear procurement, when the inspectors were actually in the country. What do you think they did when there was absolutely nobody there keeping an eye on things for four years, when the inspectors were gone?

As for links with Al-Qaeda. Well, the one upper-level guy was mentioned by Powell. Not only was he in Iraq for months, but he was actually in Baghdad for weeks. Iraq is a police state. It's not like the US where people move about freely. Saddam had to have known the guy was there, under his nose. Then recently the CIA director said there were another dozen Al-Qaeda guys known to be operating out of Baghdad. But none of this is nearly as bad as the potential in the future. It all comes down to trust. Do you trust Saddam not to arm terrorists? As a matter of fact, there was one guy who wrote a book about evidence linking Iraq to the World Trade Center bombing, not the hijacking but the bombing. Whether there was any validity to it, I don't know.