@mickey,
>>and, yes the US was watching up to that point<<
uh, doing a lot more than watching, actually. Remember the Lend-Lease act? The funny thing is, american's attitudes towards this war were mostly shaped by the same machine that shaped them in WWII, it's just much more efficient now.
>>, but most of europe was getting its butt kicked up till that point. i'm not saying americans saved everyone else's , i'm just saying that america was the straw that broke the camel's back.<<
and your point? gee, the french made major contributions during the US war for independence; I don't see them attempting to use it as justification these days.
>>Iraq's leadership is crumbling into dust and it's people being liberated.<<
uh, hmmm. so far americans have been met with resistance all along the way. relatively few of the Iraqi defense forces have actually surrendered, and the Fedyeen (sp?) are now beginning coordinated attacks on US rear positions and supply lines. Sound like the leadership has crumbled to you?
>>Despite constant assertions by the anti-war crowd that Saddam did not have banned weapons - he has been documented as using them against our forces last night and today. So far, they have only been SCUDs <<
It's not just the anti-war crowd that are asserting this, but the UN inspectors themselves. In fact, it is only the US and UK governments that are asserting anything else. I got news fer ya, the missiles used so far against the US were NOT PRORSCRIBED BY UN RESOLUTION - those missiles are short range ballistic missiles, rather than the long range ones actually proscribed by resolution. Moreover, Iraq was busily destroying medium range missiles at the request of the UN before the US decided to invade. And... think this one over brainiac ... if the missiles fired at the US are "weapons of mass destruction" then so is my slingshot! We have done more damage to our troops and allies retalliating against these "Weapons of Mass Destruction" than the weapons themselves have done! (we managed to shoot down a british jet with the weapons we use to defend against these so called "major threats")
>>- hopefully the conflict will be over before he gets a chance to finally reveal where he's been hiding all of that Anthrax, Saren gas, and the nuclear campaign that Iraqi defectors have been warning about for over a year.<<
I have to agree that I also hope the same. I also hope for your own sanity that they at least find SOME real evidence of any of the WMD's you list, as there hasn't been any publically released so far. What will you do if, after all is said and done, no significant weapons from your list are actually found. What will you believe then?
>>The coalition against Saddam's regime has grown to over 40 nations - despite claims from detractors that we were acting alone. More and more are coming aboard as they begin to see that Saddam really is THAT crazy.<<<
uh, exsqueeze me, but only 3 nations have pledged troops, and the bulk of the forces still are represented by the US (over 85%). this is a far cry from the 1st gulf war. Moreover, if you look at how the US got those "40 nations" to sign on in "support" you will find that most climbed on after being offered very magnanamous grants, or were privately extorted by the US adminstration. VERY FEW are offering anything but their name in support.
>>>Iraqi civilians that have alredy been liberated have been practically humping our soldiers in the streets. They have vehemently displayed their hatred for Saddam (despite the fact that he won 100% of their votes in a recent "election") and are obviously excited about the enventual liberation of the entire country. <<<
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> uh, even the primary US media hasn't shown this to be the case. What the hell is your source for this info?
>>The U.S. led coalition has set amazing precedents in noble attempts to limit not only civilian casualties but even Iraqi military casualties! We've spent enormous amounts of time and money making sure that soldiers in Iraq are aware that they do not have to die for Saddam. One of the biggest logistical concerns of our military in this conflict has not been the destruction of the Iraqi people, but rather the protection of their civilians from their own government and the safe surrender of the fighting forces.<<
Gees, I haven't heard anyone parrot the conservative media spin on this so well since Nixon times. One, war propaganda to attempt coercion into surrender is nothing new. It's been done since before WWII. Why? because it's CHEAPER to do it that way than waste ammo. Here is a direct quote from one of the soldiers on the front line who I watched being interviewed last night:
reporter to soldier: I have heard it is difficult to tell the civilians from the combatants (here). What orders have you been given if it looks like a civilian might be hostile?
soldier: I have a green light to shoot any potential threats.
reporter: even if it looks like a civilian.
soldier: yes.
even so, the collateral damage from the war directly probably will not be the largest source of civilian casualties. It is more likely to be from starvation as no aid workers can get Iraqi civilians at this point, and their food supply is running out.
>>Why then, are there still people who are against this operation?
Is it because they feel that Hans Blix and his teams should have been given more time? Despite the fact that most naysayers still don't realize that Blix and his people were NOT there to find banned weapons - people still think that he should have been given more time. Blix himself also recently expressed no regret or outrage that Saddam had chosen war over simply handing over his weapons.<<
NO! the reason so many are against this war is that they see the repercussions of going against the rule of law. How on earth is an illegal war without international sanction going to curb terrorism? Terrorists don't have "countries" they mostly exists as loose knit groups. getting rid of saddam may reduce (I say may, as there really isn't any evidence that he has sponsored terrorism against the US since 1990), one potential threat, while giving impetus to dozens or even hundreds more. Where will it end? With only the US left and all other countries bombed back to the stone age?
Just because Blix is upset that Saddam did not surrender (what is your evidence of this, BTW) does not make what the US did any less upsetting.
>>People are now saying (as was predicted by the more thoughtful of journalists)___Which Journalists would these be? Rush Limbaugh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" /> ___ that Saddam is now somehow justified in using the weapons that he was not supposed to have. How does this work? Are these people trying to say that it is better for Saddam to actually use these weapons on people than to simply give them up peacefully? <<<
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" /> No, you moron! I guess you missed the whole cold war, huh? What they were saying is that it was extremely unlikely that Saddam would use WMD with the threat of destruction of his regime hanging over his head. Now that there is no longer an implied threat (we invaded), what has he got to loose? Aside from this, the discussion was purely hypothetical as there was no evidence presented to indicate he even had them to use.
>>>Do people really believe that if Saddam were willing to go to war with the most powerful military coalition ever devised simply because he wants to keep his weapons that he would somehow have been open to letting U.N. inspectors find them? Anyone willing to risk their lives, their country, and their people's lives would certainly not let a few inspectors stumble across a few weapons. Let's step back into a reality for a bit.<<<
Indeed, let's get back to reality. One: Saddam did not declare war on the US. If he were willing to go to war, wouldn't he want to fire the first shot?
He doesn't care about his weapons, he cares about keeping power. that's it.
UN inspectors did not complain (the UNMOVIC team) that they did not have full access. They simply were not finding any WMD's. If all of these weapons existed, and the americans knew where they were, why didn't they tell the inspections team?
>>So what is it? Again, I'm at a loss. <<
no surprise here. You need some strong glasses to see past your propaganda driven world.
>> Is it because of the loss of life? Well, I've already pointed out that this campaign is more "life-friendly" than any campaign devised of it's size in history. Also, it's a fact that Saddam is responsible for YEARLY more of his own people as were killed in the ENTIRE Gulf War 1. Imagine that - Saddam kills more Iraqis in ONE YEAR every year than a U.S. led coalition did in outright war 12 years ago in which Iraqi casualties were NOT such a big concern. In liberating Iraq, we are saving lives - so that can't be the reasoning.
So? Why are people still against it? <<
As i mentioned before, they are afraid of losing legitimacy, of losing the rule of law, of actually INCREASING the terrorist threat against the US. You obviously have nothing to fear because you blindly ignore the real danger here.
>> Well, in actuality - most people support it. In recent polls, the vast majority of peoples support the U.S. President in his actions and agree that the U.N. had failed miserably. <<
those two do not go together. check your stats.
>>To add insult to injury, more and more countries are signing up daily to become a part of what is now the beginning of freedom and new life for the Iraqi people.<<
what the hell does that mean? are you signing up to be a part of a new life for the Iraqi's? why don't you ask the afghanis what they thought of our "help".
>>Why are people still against it? I really can't say - other than to say that these people are REALLY against Bush and are simply using this war as an extension of him to . To those people I would like to offer this thought: You may our President - you may even us. I hope you realize, however, that we are bringing to the Iraqi people the gift of freedom and a new life away from a terrible dictator whom they've lived under in fear for about 30 years. You can go ahead and Bush and the U.S. - but, please - look at what you're REALLY against here.<<<
*sigh* all of this is just regurgitation of your previous missive, no reason to respond further
>>The regime is shutting down and soon the Iraqis will be free. Be happy for them, if nothing else. <<
I certainly will, for the ones that survive, that is. What i won't be happy about is what happens to the rule of law in the world because of this. I won't be happy when china uses this as an excuse to invade Taiwan, or N. Korea uses it as an excuse to launch a pre-emptive strike on S. Korea. I won't be happy about those who are called "cowards" and unpatriotic because they believe that this war is not a good thing for the US, nore the rest of the world.
Will you be happy about these things, I wonder?
