Daughter Was Deployed Today

[NOSValves]

edster00,

Your post say's it all !! Saddam should of been taken care of when he tossed the weapons inspectors out while lovely spineless cigar shoving Clinton was in office. I guess he was to busy with Monica !! All these problems including Asama can be directly attributed to the dismantling of are Intelligence and Military during the Clinton administration. My son has been driving trucks for delivery to the middle east for the last few weeks. On one trip they started out with 103 trucks on the 600 mile trip 43 made it without breaking down !! This is the security Clinton left us with !!

If anyone actually thinks that Asama is just prancing around with out a care in the world is fooling himself !! Mark just how easy do you think it is to find a needle in a hay stack ??

TEC14576,

your post is absolutely absurd. This march to war as you all like to call it is in fact destroying are economy !! Just exactly who besides military suppliers do you figure is getting rich ??

[edster00]

What has Saddam done to ushow about continue to support terrorism? Did Saddam denounce 9/11 or rejoice at 9/11? He continues to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in defiance of the world. It is not a question of what has he done to us since, it is a question of enforcing the demands the UN placed on him 12 years ago. I know you don't agree and that is certainly your prerogative.

If the former administration had the backbone to take care of Saddam in '91 we wouldn't be arguing this point. The former administration and the UN tackled the problem by "kicking the can" down the road and here we are 12 years later. 17 UN resolutions later. We can either continue to "kick the can" or do something about it. I have no doubt that if we put this off until the next Democratic administration and that administration decides to go after Sadam you will be behind it 100%.

One might also ask why the UN required Saddam to disarm in the first place. Lets try to take this step-by-step so that we all can understand it.

1. In 1991 American troops are poised to march on Baghdad to unseat Saddam Hussein.

2. Saddam wants to try to find a way to save his butt and retain some of his power in Iraq.

3. Acting through the U.N., the United States agrees to discontinue military action against Hussein if he will agree to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in his military arsenal.

4. Saddam is also forced to agree to a regimen of inspections to certify that he is actually disarming.

5. Saddam Hussein admits to the inspectors that he has thousands of gallons of various chemical and biological weapons, and the weapons systems to deliver these chemical and biological weapons throughout much of the Middle East.

6. In 1998 Hussein effectively kicks the inspectors out of Iraq. He then has a four-year period to do whatever he likes with his WMD program.

7. In the Fall of 2002, as the United States is threatening military action against Hussein, he repeatedly makes that claim that he has destroyed all WMD in his arsenal, and that he has no more.

8. In 2002 the U.N. places inspectors back into Iraq. The mandate of resolution 1441 is not to find WMD, but rather to verify Saddams claim that he has destroyed them all.

9. Saddam has provided no evidence to back up his claims that he has destroyed all WMD in his possession before or after the inspectors were kicked out in 1998.

10. The U.N. inspectors found missile warheads capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons. These are warheads that Saddam said he had destroyed.

11. The U.N. inspectors find 3000 pages of documents in an Iraqi scientists home detailing an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

12. The weapons inspectors found missles that are capable of flying distances that exceed the distance limitations placed on Iraq by the UN. Hans Blix is evidently going to require Saddam to destroy them. We'll see if he complies.

I have no doubt that the US can wipe out Saddam without a single American stepping foot on Iraqi soil. We could simply bomb the hell out of him with little or no loss of American lives but at the expense of innocent Iraqi lives. Instead we will also use ground forces and lose American lives along the way in order to save some of those innocent Iraqi lives. Saddam will put women, children and the elderly in his palaces and military installations (just like last time) so if we bomb them Saddam can claim the innocent were slain by the evil Americans. Ill be willing to bet that among the first Iraqi casualties will be thousands of innocent Iraqis that Saddam will bomb himself so he can blame it on the evil Americans. It is time to put that mad man away IMHO.

I sincerely hope that one of Saddam's republican guard will put a bullet in his head or that the leaders or the other countries in the region will convince Saddam to go into exile. I think that would be the best solution and avoid war altogether.

I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. That is why I generally avoid these types of discussions. I've made my beliefs known now, and that is all I have to say on this subject

[HDBRbuilder]

Just something to point out here...the drawdown in size, planned closings of military bases, and funding cutbacks for the military all occurred BEFORE 1990....and were scheduled to be phased-in BEGINNING in 1990. This was due to the break-up of the former USSR, and the former Warsaw Pact alliance, and was mandated by CONGRESSIONAL legislation. Its implementation was TEMPORARILY DELAYED until AFTER the return of our forces from Operation Desert Shield/Storm, because of the need for those forces at that time...and actually finally went into effect as LAW beginning in late 1992. It had NOTHING to do with the Clinton Administration in the White House, and the Republican-dominated Congress of the time when it finally was implemented did NOTHING to change it. So let us all quit trying to blame the current status of our military and its equipment on presidential administrations...because the FACTS are that the military budget actually INCREASED each year since 1990, and continues to do so!

The REAL problem since 1990 that sucked the defense budget dry was the offering up to career soldiers the payment of large bonuses based upon their years of service in order to get them to LEAVE active duty voluntarily and not remain until normal retirement(with an anticipated savings in future years of military budget dollars due to no need to pay out all of those retirement checks each month)...with the concept that the loss of these former career soldiers would allow for a more equitable down-sizing of the military COMPLETELY throughout the "pyramid" of rank structure. But that is NOT what occurred. Generally speaking it was primarily the CENTER of the pyramnid of rank structure that "took the money and ran"..thereby leaving a severe shortage of upper company-grade and lower field-grade ranks (Primarily captains and majors, and comparable enlisted ranks)...and almost NO dwindling of the higher echelons of rank(ie., generals, the number of which actually INCREASED since the beginning of the draw-down)!! And MOST of these active duty career soldiers who got these bonuses, just went into jobs opening-up in a strong civilian economy while entering the reserve force structure...so that they could STILL end up drawing a military retirement check later on!! Did all of this actually save any money? NOPE!! It ended up COSTING MORE!!

Now...let's talk about the equipment problems many of you want to bring up!! Part of the drawdown laws pertained to a force restructure based upon political objectives of the Congress who passed it into legislation. In no way was this part of the plan the idea of the pentagon who fought against it!! It was completely the idea of pork-barrel politicians who wanted some kind of "deal" out of the closing of so many military bases as FEDERAL installations in their states. In many cases the closed FEDERAL military bases just reverted their control to the state National Guard in those states...both AIR Guard AND Army Guard. This was allowed in lieu of complete closing of many these bases because it was noted that training areas for the state national guard units would be available locally and it would not be necessary to pay exhorbitant travel costs for these units to get to FEDERALLY-controlled military bases for their required monthly and annual collective training periods. But the fact of the cost to maintain these bases exceeding the cost of this travel was politely overlooked by the pork-barrel politicians in their arguments. Results? Defense dollars allocated to states for use in maintaining existing equipment and purchasing NEW equipment went to keeping these state-run military bases operating, instead! This created a severe shortage of parts and equipment for these national guard units....to include even uniforms. What was done about it? Even more defense budget dollars are allocated to the states' national guard elements for maintenance of equipment and new equipment...leaving LESS money for that in active duty units. How was it justified? Simple...the force structure had changed. Example: ALL ARMY RESERVE units that were PREVIOUSLY combat arms elements, were re-structured to become support and service support units, while the combat arms units were now National Guard units. Since Combat arms units have to have the same readiness as their respective active duty unit counterparts, then even more defense department money was allocated to states for the upkeep of equipment and purchase of new equipment in order to implement the "total force" concept for future wartime needs. The REAL result of this? Now not only the reserves had to do without, but also the active duty units had to do without..needed money for this equipment maintenance, upgrades, and basic purchases! So everything suffered! And it got even worse!! Why? Because with our national policy of being the world's peacekeepers, and the increasing demand of units to accomplish this throughout the world in the last decade...combined with the downsizing of the active components at the same time...not only active duty units had more wear and tear on their equipment, but also reserve and national guard elements...all of whom have been called upon to provide the needed manpower and equipment throughout the world during the past decade or so in order for out country to be the "world peace-keepers"!!!

So let's quit all of this political bickering on this forum about presidential administrations causing this and that...and put the blame for this where it belongs: pork-barrel Congressional politics, and our aquired international role in being the "peace-keepers" of the damned world!! OK?

Instead...let us TRY and get back to the point of this particular thread to begin with..it is NOT a political thread....neither is it an ideological thread!!

It is a thread of CONCERN FOR THOSE WHO ARE BEING CALLED UPON TO GO...those individuals who have VOLUNTEERED to be there when our country calls upon them...NO MATTER WHAT THE POLITICAL/IDEOLOGICAL REASON!!

These individuals are the cream of the crop! They are our fathers, our mothers, our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters!!! Try to show some respect for them. Put aside the petty bickering, political/ideological commentary, and War-hawk vs. Dove comments and, instead, use this thread to SUPPORT THESE BRAVE INDIVIDUALS who MAY have to give the ultimate sacrifice in this endeavor! Save your other comments for somewhere else!!

Let's just suffice to say we ALL wish them the best and a safe return HOME!!!

Is that too damned much to ask?????????

[Parrot]

I remember when Bush was in the debates with Gore. Bush advocated that the US take a step or two back from trying to police the world, particularly in the Middle East, and let the nations in question settle their own problems and govern themselves. He took quite a bit of heat for these statements.

Anyway, September 11 changed all this. We are now at war, a different kind of war, and individuals need to adjust to new realities.

[Scipio80]

I support the troops fully. But I don't support this war.

But since this war is becoming inevitable I hope it is a quick and decisive war. I don't want us to have to come back in ten years to finish a job we didn't bother with the first time.

[Fish]

I wonder how many lives the US bashing by protesters, of which some don't even know what they are protesting will cost? This gives Saddam great comfort,making him think he can fool the world,or the world is fools,not sure which.When ask, what is the US invading for,many said oil.When ask why the US did not take over the oil after Desert Storm,many said,hmm...good question.

[Chris Robinson]

Andy, I second that notion.

[whell]

mdeneen:

P.S. Israel has ignored UN resolutions for about 30 years! I'm not hearing any war drums beating to knock them senseless for their "recalcitrance."

That's playing rather fast and loose with the facts in my humble opinion. Example: UN Resolution 1402 requires " the immediate withdrawl of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah..."

Would we hold Isreal to task for defeding itself against suicide attacks? The reason Isreali troops are in "Palestinian cities" (the way the resolution is written should give you some incite as to who in the UN is siding with who on this issue) is to root out and bring to justice those individuals who are responsible for the terrorist attacks against Isreali citizens.

So, mdeneen, if you agree that Isreal is inappropriately "ignoring" this resolution, then I guess you would also agree we should not have gone into Afganistan to root out Al Quaida?

[NOSValves]

Well to be honest with you I have no clue why after we whip the dog sh!t out of someone we are expected to rebuild there country ? This has always befuddled me !

This entire subject is a big waste of time !! You abviously can see no right in what is happening while the rest of us can see right and wrong in it. We just feel the right out ways the wrong !

Craig

[MBM135]

I would like to thank you for your daughter's service to her country! As an 18 year military active duty member I can assure you she is being well led and serving a worthy cause to our nation. We in America are blessed with an all volunteer force of brave souls to answer their country's call to duty so others may have the right to protest and cry "foul" whenever the mere mention of sending soldiers to battle is made. If we had heeded the liberal call throughout our history we would not have a history and would not be speaking English.

While many of our bretheren march through the streets in protest, people such as your daughter are actually doing something to help rid the world of tyranny. Don't let the liberal message get you down. If the bleeding heart liberals had access to the information our senior leaders have on what is really going on out there they would lay awake at night, or enlist. But, many liberals would protest out of ignorance even if Saddam was bombing our cities with nuclear weapons. And, eventually he would. No doubt. no amount of white Land Crusisers with UN painted on the door will stop that.

The war against terrorism must be stopped. Have faith, we will win eventually. The last people that want war is the men and women of our armed forces--for they will be asked to make the greatest sacrifices.

We will pray for the safe and hasty return of your daughter. Until then, be proud! You as a family member also sacrifice and share in the battle by giving support to us!

MM

[Bruinsrme]

To those serving our country and to those that have served;

Thank you!!!!!

Let's hope and pray our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, mom and dads all come home safe and soon....

Scott Carroll

US Navy Veteran (disabled)

[rowooo]

Mdeneen.....I really didn't want to get involved in this but some of your principles and reasoning are just plain baffling to me. First of all there is no direct correlation between budgetary cuts and NASA's two shuttle failures. If you knew anything about the Challenger failure, and I'm sure you do, you know money was NOT an issue. Your comment on "Afghanistan was not a very successful venture," Are you serious? I would bet the thousands of Afghan women and child marching around the country would beg to differ with you. Bush ignoring the dissent of his own people! Now your taking that way out of context. He was asked a question on whether these demonstrations would alter his drive and/or change his ideas and resolve and he replied he would not let them interfere with his case. To turn that around and say he ignores the dissent of his own people is ridiculous and you know it. Everyone needs to realize, and sometimes its difficult to put in perspective, but the actual numbers protesting out there are extremely minimal. The people who support either the Bush foreign policy or the case to go to war with Iraq are not out on the streets protesting, only the people who, well to be honest only the people who dislike Bush and his policies. The funny thing is if you go out and ask these protesters what they would do different or alternatives to solve this problem, they don't have a damn clue. Most of these YOUNG people are uninformed followers that have no idea most of these demonstrations are being organized by anti-american lunatics. So if you want to stroll on down the road holding hands with Sheen and Robbins thats fine, but I for one think your way off here. I bet you were up in arms when Clinton tossed a few cruise missles into a pharmacuetical facility in Sudan or bombed most of Bosnia into the stone ages. I don't consider giving money aid and grants to Turkey, whose economy was detrimentally crushed during the gulf war, a WASTE of money. What I consider a waste of money is giving North Korea six BILLION dollars, nuclear making material and technology while there government starved two and a half million of there own citizens. But hey, at least Carter go his little medal. And lastly, bringing Reagan into this is a joke. The situation was completely different and sometimes who have to choose the lesser of two evils. I think looking back we can all conclude the President Reagans foreign policy was a major success.

[TBrennan]

MBM---Had it not been for the "Liberal Call" in history we'd still be subjects of the English Crown. Those that called for freedom from Britian were the Liberals, the Conservatives of the time were the Loyalists.

As a matter of fact at any given time in history the Conservatives were on the wrong side of almost every issue. In 1776 the Conservatives favored the King over freedom, in the 1820s and 30s they resisted universal male suffrage, in the 1840s they favored slavery over abolition, in the 1860s they favored secession and rebellion over loyalty to The United States. Conservatives have resisted female and ***** suffrage, better conditions and pay for workers, have favored prohibition and racial segregation---Christ man, I don't think there's anything you guys were ever on the right side of.

[mobile homeless]

Tom and Mdeneen, thanks for making this thread palatable. That was an Excellent post, Tom. And mdeneen has made some extremely lucid points in several of the posts.

While I would agree to support those that are called for duty, I ultimately disagree with about 99% of the points made. Frankly, some of the attitudes within here are the very reason that America is starting to see such turmoil from the outside now within our shores. We are paying for the absolutely slipshod foreign policy that has been handled with little delicacy and insight.

Judging by the nature of the comments here, there is reason to worry.

kh

[Parrot]

mobile,

Let's see, you're the guy who compares Bush to Stalin on page one of this thread. Thank goodness you disagree with 99% of the points made here. You may not be doing Tom any favors by praising his post. Maybe historian Tom could recommend a book for you to read about Stalin so you don't make insane comparisons in the future.

mdeneen,

The President (not to be confused with the *ex* Presidents Carter and Clinton, who still want to be President) would have been pleased to have captured Bin Laden. But for you to act like his capture was the primary mission of liberating Afghanistan is either disingenuous or a sad misunderstanding of the situation. You are simply parroting the Democratic party line--which is fine if you want to exercise your freedom to state someone else's political views while accusing others of not having original thoughts. The problem is bigger than Bin Laden. He is one man, who may already be dead under tons of Afghanistan crushed mountain rock as it is. It is naive of you to think that terrorism would disappear with Bin Laden's certain death or capture.

[mobile homeless]

paulparrot, your reading skills, undertanding of innuendo, sense of historical perspective, and comprehension of matters outside your defined region is shallow at best. Please do me a favor and try not to summarize a point or conclusion from this end without thinking a few extra seconds. Your heavy handed statement concerning Bush vs Stalin is off the mark as most of the posts you have penned in this thread. Tie link with Propaganda, YOUR INTEPRETATION conveyed via your posts, and the Stalin comparison if you need a road map; in other words, the Bush-Stalin comparison only came from YOUR direction just above, not mine. Basically, you whiff read the jab backwards, sideways, and with a broken erasure on your #2. You assessement in the last paragraph of mdeneen's point concerning bin Laden is also guilty as charged. I think mdeneen makes this point himself concerning the impossibility of "winning the war on terrorism" (relating to the rogue nature of terrorism by definition) and would make the same argument in your conclusion above, just as he did in several posts early on. this time, you took things out of context, mixed associations, misread, drew the right conclusions from the wrong direction, and stated something obvious.

kh

[Parrot]

mobile,

I don't need any help reading, thanks anyway. If you can recall back to page one, I even gave you a chance to explain away your Stalin comparison, just in case you had screwed up big time, and you chose not to, instead choosing to try to make a little joke. The gist of the joke, for the benefit of forum readers who don't want to bother to go back to read it, is that your post was so far above me that I would hurt myself if I strained to understand it.

You seem to think that lightly touching on a subject and being obscure will make us think you're smart. But there is a big difference between seeming intelligent and being intelligent. I doubt if you've ever read a history book other than, perhaps, one assigned to you in school. You've certainly never read anything about Stalin.

[mobile homeless]

I don't need any help reading, thanks anyway. If you can recall back to page one, I even gave you a chance to explain away your Stalin comparison, just in case you had screwed up big time, and you chose not to, instead choosing to try to make a little joke. The gist of the joke, for the benefit of forum readers who don't want to bother to go back to read it, is that your post was so far above me that I would hurt myself if I strained to understand it.

Your close reading skills are extremely poor. YOU brought up Stalin, not I. Go reread the posts. It was ONCE that I mentioned Stalin in relation to your use of propaganda with a throwaway line, basically all that post of yours deserved. This was the parry. You are the one that missed the link, a link that was basically in referrence to your comparison relating to Stalin, a loaded comparison if there ever was one. The "dont hurt yourself" line was in your complete misreading of the post (lord, I never thought you would think I was comparing BUSH to Stalin). In another post, you attempt to link inaction against Saddam with inaction against Hitler, a comparison, again, using this grade school tactic of association with more horrid connotations to give your point more weight, opting for the most hated man in the World (virtually no comparison in World History as mdeneen so aptly responded). Yes, Mdeneen saw it clearly for what it was. Frankly, after reading your replies, I felt it useless to carry on an exchange with you. You posts have been consistantly over the top, and missing the mark to various degrees. And you summation of the content of my posts, just as your summation of the content in World politics, is awry at best.

As I said once before here, you might consider Mark Twain's great quote: "The difference between the right word and the nearly right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."

kh

[HDBRbuilder]

I wonder how Gregorious feels about many of the posted comments made in this thread which he started? You guys just don't get it, do you?

How would YOU like it if you posted a thread stating that one of your beloved family members had just been called to active duty for a potential war situation...and most of the postings to the thread went off into political and ideological rhetoric, instead of just being hopeful concern for your family member??

I find most of the responses to this thread disgusting at best!! I don't GIVE A DAMN about your political or ideological opinions!! This is NOT the place for them!!

So...give it a damned break, willya??

If you want to argue politics and ideologies, then start another thread for it!! It has no place on this one!! GEEZUS H. KEERIST!!!!

[NOSValves]

Actaully I think both sides of this debate are extreme and exagerated completely. I myself fall right down the middle and think great points have been brought up on both sides of the argument. I just feel the something has to be done with Saddam sooner or later. I feel sooner is better then later ! Do I believe he is directly related to 9/11 nope. But I still think if left to himself and the inspectors and the heat taken off he will indeed come back to haunt us worse then ever. He was being left alone before he invaded Kiwait !!

Craig